Plant Asset Depreciation Ethics and Accounting Fraud
This paper addresses an ethical scenario in which a supervisor requests improper changes to plant asset depreciation schedules and expense classifications in order to artificially inflate company earnings. The paper argues that altering a depreciation schedule mid-stream, reclassifying previously expensed repairs as capital assets, and manipulating earnings in either manner constitutes accounting fraud and violates professional codes of ethics. Drawing on principles of accrual accounting, GAAP-based depreciation methodology, and professional accountability, the paper concludes that such requests must be refused, documented, and, where sufficient evidence exists, reported to the relevant professional oversight body.
- Introduction: The Depreciation Dispute: Depreciation must reflect asset's useful life
- Why Manipulating Depreciation Is Accounting Fraud: Changing depreciation to boost earnings is illegal
- Proper Treatment of Repairs and Maintenance: Repairs must be expensed, not capitalized retroactively
- Proper Treatment of Plant Asset Depreciation: Adopted depreciation method cannot be arbitrarily changed
- The Expense Transfer and Its Fraudulent Purpose: Reclassifying expenses as capital assets inflates profits
- Conclusion: Refusing the Request and Protecting Professional Integrity: Refuse, document, and escalate fraudulent requests
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It takes a clear, unambiguous ethical stance from the opening sentence and sustains it throughout, giving the argument strong internal consistency.
- It connects practical accounting rules (accrual basis, MACRS, straight-line depreciation) directly to the ethical violation, grounding the moral argument in technical accuracy.
- It addresses real-world professional consequences — the obligation to report a licensed controller to their professional body — demonstrating awareness of how ethics codes operate in practice.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses rule-based reasoning: it first establishes the correct accounting treatment under established standards, then shows how the supervisor's request deviates from those standards, and finally concludes that the deviation is not merely incorrect but fraudulent. This technique — define the norm, identify the violation, assess the consequence — is a reliable structure for applied ethics arguments in accounting and business contexts.
Structure breakdown
The paper proceeds through four substantive points: (1) the principle of depreciation and why the schedule cannot be changed arbitrarily; (2) the ethical and legal implications of doing so; (3) the proper accounting treatment for repairs and maintenance; and (4) the mechanics and intent of the proposed expense transfer. Each point builds toward a unified conclusion: both requested changes constitute fraud, both must be refused, and documented evidence should be escalated appropriately.
Introduction: The Depreciation Dispute
The supervisor's request to alter the depreciation schedule is one that cannot be honored. The fundamental purpose of depreciation is to spread the accounting impact of a major purchase across the useful life of the asset. If the expected useful life of the machine is five years, that is the period over which the purchase must be depreciated. It is not appropriate to change the expected life of an asset mid-stream. If the asset had been depreciated on a five-year schedule in prior periods, that schedule must be maintained. Whether the asset has been fully paid for is irrelevant, since this is accrual accounting, not cash accounting.
Why Manipulating Depreciation Is Accounting Fraud
The motivation behind the proposed change makes the situation considerably more serious. Manipulating depreciation terms as a means of manipulating reported earnings is outright accounting fraud and is therefore illegal. It also runs against every professional code of ethics applicable to the accounting profession.
The requested changes to both the depreciation schedule and the expense transfers will not be made. These changes are being proposed for the specific purpose of manipulating earnings, which is an illegal act and a violation of professional ethical standards throughout the accounting field. Management behaves unethically by making such a request. The controller is presumably a licensed accountant, and if the controller has genuinely requested this change, it constitutes a breach of ethical duty. If tangible evidence of this request exists, there would be an obligation to report the conduct to the professional body with which the controller holds membership, as the request almost certainly violates that body's code of conduct.
Proper Treatment of Repairs and Maintenance
The proper accounting treatment for repairs and maintenance is to expense them in the period incurred. They are not added to capital assets, nor do they alter the carrying value of pre-existing capital assets. If repairs are performed specifically to extend the useful life of an asset, they may be recorded as a capital expenditure. However, that is clearly not the case here, since these costs were initially recorded as expenses — indicating that the repairs were not undertaken for the purpose of extending the asset's life.
To reclassify these expenses after the fact constitutes accounting fraud, because such reclassification would serve to manipulate the financial statements. The original classification was correct, and reversing it without a legitimate basis is impermissible under generally accepted accounting principles.
Conclusion: Refusing the Request and Protecting Professional Integrity
I would not process the entry, and would make it clear to the supervisor that their request constitutes an illegal act, and that no such requests will ever be honored or tolerated. Both the depreciation manipulation and the expense reclassification serve only to misrepresent the company's financial position, and complying with either request would expose the preparer to serious legal and professional consequences. Professional integrity demands refusal, documentation, and, where the evidence supports it, escalation to the appropriate authority.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.