Why do U.S. companies keep using LIFO while IFRS prohibits it? a. LIFO provides a more realistic income statement since the most recent items purchased are what is measured on the income statement. b. LIFO assigns less weight to the balance sheet. c. The taxing authority in the U.S. has conformity provisions.

What benefit does a country get out of remaining insularly and isolated in their accounting policies? (i.e. import policies, not following IFRS, etc.)

The U.S. system of accounting for worldwide income is not the norm in the rest of the world. Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing or indifferent?

Which of the following is true of accounting for research and development cost?     Responses Accounting for research and development costs is same under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Accounting for research and development costs is same under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The current accounting for research and development costs under U.S. GAAP avoids the probability of companies to manipulate their earnings. The current accounting for research and development costs under U.S. GAAP avoids the probability of companies to manipulate their earnings. U.S.GAAP adheres to the matching principle by expensing research and development costs. U.S.GAAP adheres to the matching principle by expensing research and development costs. Under U.S. GAAP accounting for research and development costs violates the conservative principle. Under U.S. GAAP accounting for research and development costs violates the conservative principle.