jurisdiction: US

text: b" March 16, 2004\n\n\n\n\nFinancial Management\nAssets Depreciation Reported on the\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nFY 2002 Financial Statements\n(D-2004-059)\n\n\n\n\n Department of Defense\n Office of the Inspector General\n\n Constitution of\n the United States\n\n A Regular Statement of Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public\n Money shall be published from time to time.\n Article I, Section 9\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Inspector\n General of the Department of Defense at www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports or\n contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit of the Audit Followup and\n Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703)\n 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Audit Followup and\n Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or fax (703)\n 604-8932. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General of the Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n Defense Hotline\n\n To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling (800)\n 424-9098; by sending an electronic message to Hotline@dodig.osd.mil; or by\n writing to the Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900. The\n identity of each writer and caller is fully protected.\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nCEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System\nCOEMIS Corps of Engineers Management Information System\nDEPREVER Depreciation Verification Report\nER Engineer Regulation\nFMR Financial Management Regulation\nGAO General Accounting Office\nPMA Power Marketing Administration\nIG DoD Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nUSACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\n\x0c\x0c Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nReport No. D-2004-059 March 16, 2004\n Project No. (D2003FH-0042)\n\nAssets Depreciation Reported on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\n FY 2002 Financial Statements\n\n Executive Summary\n\nWho Should Read This Report and Why? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)\nfinancial managers responsible for the calculation and reporting of depreciation, and\npersons charged with the preparation of Chief Financial Officers financial statements\nshould read this report. This report discusses problems in the calculation and reporting of\naccumulated depreciation, and the inadequate disclosure of facts related to the\npreparation of financial statements.\n\nBackground. This report is one of a series of reports to be issued on accounting and\nfinancial statements at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works. The Chief\nFinancial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994\nrequire annual financial statement audits of the Department of Defense. As part of the\nstrategy to implement these laws, the Office of Management and Budget requires certain\nDoD entities, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works to prepare\naudited financial statements. Prior financial statement audits of the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Civil Works have resulted in disclaimers of opinion because of material\ndeficiencies in the statements and supporting information.\n\nThis report addresses the accumulated depreciation for buildings and structures that the\nUSACE annually reports on its Balance Sheet. On its FY 2002 financial statements,\nUSACE reported the acquisition cost of its buildings and structures as $30.5 billion.\nAccumulated depreciation of $12.5 billion reduced the net book value of these assets to\n$18.0 billion. Before the publication of the FY 2002 financial statements, we performed\naudit work to determine if the amount of accumulated depreciation reported on the\nfinancial statements was fairly stated.\n\nBecause time constraints precluded USACE from providing sufficient audit-ready\nevidential material to meet deadlines established by the Office of Management and\nBudget, we were unable to complete audit work and therefore, did not render an opinion\non the USACE FY 2002 Financial Statements. After the Office of Management and\nBudget deadline, USACE and the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing of the\nDepartment of Defense signed a memorandum of agreement. The memorandum outlined\nagreed-upon audit procedures to allow Office of the Inspector General of the Department\nof Defense auditors to verify the material line items on the FY 2002 Balance Sheet and\nbeginning balances for the audit of the FY 2003 financial statements. Verifying a\nbeginning balance for accumulated depreciation directly affected one of the material line\nitems on the USACE Balance Sheet.\n\nResults. We were not able to verify the beginning balance for accumulated depreciation.\nFurther, in the process of performing agreed-upon procedures, we identified deficiencies\n\x0cin the disclosure of information in the notes accompanying the financial statements.\nFinally, we determined that USACE calculations relative to the \xe2\x80\x9cuseful life\xe2\x80\x9d of a property\nwere not always in compliance with DoD standards.\n\nThe $12.5 billion presented in the USACE FY 2002 Financial Statements for\naccumulated depreciation was not reliable. As a result, the beginning balance for\naccumulated depreciation to be reported in the USACE FY 2003 Financial Statements\ncould be misstated by as much as $293 million (net). USACE should verify the recorded\ndepreciation for all of its buildings and structures and correct the accumulated\ndepreciation for those assets (finding A).\n\nWe concluded after reviewing the notes to the FY 2002 financial statements, that USACE\ndid not adequately disclose the relationship between itself and the Power Marketing\nAdministrations. Because of these disclosure omissions, the financial statements did not\nprovide relevant information about the USACE business operation. USACE should\nprovide adequate disclosure in the financial statement for those accounts affected by the\nrelationship between the assets owned and operated by USACE, and the Power\nMarketing Administrations\xe2\x80\x99 marketing of the electrical power derived from some of these\nassets (finding B).\n\nUSACE did not comply with the guidance pertaining to \xe2\x80\x9cuseful life\xe2\x80\x9d contained in the\nDoD 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d August 2000, when\ndepreciating its buildings and structures. As a result, USACE could be significantly\nunderstating accumulated depreciation in its financial statements. USACE should\nperform a study to determine the true useful life of its assets and request a revision to\nDoD 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d for those assets, if necessary.\nIn addition, USACE should verify the accuracy of the useful lives assigned to its assets\nand update the engineering regulation to include guidance relative to useful life for its\nOther civil assets (finding C). See the Finding section for the detailed recommendations.\n\nManagement Comments and Audit Response. The Commander, U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers concurred with using the depreciation variance report to identify the assets that\nrequired adjustments to the recorded accumulated depreciation and made $489 million in\nadjustments to the FY 2003 depreciation amount. However, we request that USACE\nassert to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense auditors whether all\nrequired adjustments were made. For the districts where substantial variances still exist\nbetween the depreciation variance report and recorded depreciation, we request that\nUSACE provide the results and reasons for the remaining variances to the Office of the\nInspector General of the Department of Defense for review and concurrence. We request\nthat the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comment on the final report by\nApril 16, 2004. See the Finding sections of the report for a discussion of management\ncomments and the Management Comments section of the report for the complete text of\nthe comments.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nBackground 1\n\nObjective 1\n\nFindings\n A. Reliability of the Accumulated Depreciation Amount Presented in the\n FY 2002 Financial Statements 2\n B. Disclosure of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Power\n Marketing Administration Relationship 10\n C. Asset Useful Life 14\n\nAppendixes\n A. Scope and Methodology 20\n B. Prior Coverage 22\n C. Glossary 24\n D. Department of Defense Recovery Periods 25\n E. Report Distribution 26\n\nManagement Comments\n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 29\n\x0cBackground\n This audit was performed in support of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990\n (Public Law 101-576), as amended by the Government Management Reform Act\n of 1994 (Public Law 103-356). As part of the strategy to implement these laws,\n the Office of Management and Budget requires certain DoD entities, including the\n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, to prepare audited financial\n statements. This report is one of a series resulting from our audits of the\n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Civil Works financial statements for\n FY 2002.\n\n When the Inspector General for the Department of Defense (IG DoD) published\n the, \xe2\x80\x9cIndependent Auditor\xe2\x80\x99s Report on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil\n Works, Fiscal Year 2002 Principal Financial Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d (Report\n No. D2003-043), January 2003, we did not report on asset depreciation. We\n stated that time constraints precluded USACE providing sufficient audit-ready\n evidential material for the auditors to complete the audit. We went on to state that\n unfinished audit work would be completed as an agreed-upon procedure.\n\n A subsequent memorandum of agreement between USACE and IG DoD,\n \xe2\x80\x9cAgreed-Upon Procedures to Establish Beginning Balances for the Audit of the\n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, FY 2003 Financial Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d\n January 8, 2003, outlined procedures to verify material line items on the\n FY 2002 Balance Sheet. The memorandum also provided for verifying beginning\n balances in preparation for the audit of the FY 2003 financial statements. For\n FY 2002, USACE reported $12.5 billion in accumulated depreciation on\n $30.5 billion of assets for the Buildings, Structures, and Facilities category of\n General Property, Plant, and Equipment.\n\n The Department of Energy administers four Federally-owned power-marketing\n agencies in the United States. These include the Western Area Power\n Administration, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power\n Administration, and the Southwestern Power Administration. These Power\n Marketing Administrations (PMAs) sell to Federal and state agencies and to\n publicly owned utilities. USACE produces and supplies some of the power sold\n by the PMAs, and approximately one-third of the USACE buildings and\n structures relate to power production. Finding B discusses matters related to the\n disclosure of the relationship between USACE and the PMAs.\n\n\nObjective\n The overall audit objective was to determine whether USACE could rely on the\n ending balance of accumulated depreciation presented in the U.S. Army Corps of\n Engineers, Civil Works, FY 2002 Financial Statements to establish the beginning\n balance in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, FY 2003 Financial\n Statements. See Appendix A for a discussion of the scope and methodology of\n the audit, and Appendix B for prior coverage related to the objective.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c A. Reliability of the Accumulated\n Depreciation Amount Presented in the\n FY 2002 Financial Statements\n USACE cannot rely on the $12.5 billion of accumulated depreciation it\n reported for buildings and structures in its FY 2002 financial statements to\n establish the beginning balance for its FY 2003 financial statements. This\n is primarily because USACE did not comply with generally accepted\n accounting principles (GAAP) when it converted from the composite to\n the straight-line method of depreciation for hydropower assets. As a\n result, the beginning balance for accumulated depreciation in the FY 2003\n Financial Statements may be misstated by as such as $293 million (net) if\n USACE relies on the previously reported FY 2002 ending balance.\n\n\nBefore CEFMS\n Depreciable Assets. Beginning in 1993, USACE converted its accounting\n system from the Corps of Engineers Management Information System (COEMIS)\n to the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS). At the time\n of conversion, the USACE buildings and structures assets were divisible into\n three depreciation categories. These categories were hydropower assets\xe2\x80\x94assets\n that it used for electrical power production, which the Power Marketing\n Administrations distribute\xe2\x80\x94revolving fund assets; and the buildings and other\n civil structure assets. Before the conversion, USACE districts calculated\n depreciation only for hydropower and revolving fund assets. Table 1 shows the\n distribution of USACE buildings and structures among the three categories as of\n September 30, 2002. As of that date, the book cost for hydropower and revolving\n fund assets totaled $10.7 billion, while the remaining category, Other civil,\n totaled $19.9 billion. Based on dollar value or quantities, the USACE was not\n depreciating a majority of its assets before CEFMS.\n\n\n Table 1. Categories of USACE Buildings and Structures\n September 30, 2002\n ($ Millions)\n\n No. of Accumulated\n Category of Assets Book Cost Net Book Value\n Items Depreciation\n Hydropower 24,131 $10,370 ($ 3,811) $ 6,559\n Revolving Funds 1,046 313 (123) 190\n Other Civil 32,357 19,867 (8,573) 11,294\n\n Total 57,534 $30,550 ($12,507) $18,043\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Depreciation Methods. While using COEMIS, USACE depreciated hydropower\n assets based on a composite service life for a group of assets collectively referred\n to as a feature. (A glossary of terms is included as Appendix C.) Engineer\n Regulation (ER) 37-2-10, \xe2\x80\x9cFinancial Administration - Accounting and Reporting\n - Civil Works Activities,\xe2\x80\x9d 1 April 1969 supplied the method for calculating the\n composite life for the feature. The districts used the composite life to calculate\n the annual depreciation charge for the entire feature rather than calculating\n depreciation charges on individual assets. That method was a form of composite\n or group depreciation. Following conversion to CEFMS, the districts used, and\n continue to use, the straight-line method of depreciation, which calculates\n depreciation on individual assets rather than on a feature or collection of assets.\n The change from composite to straight-line depreciation was a change in\n accounting principle. Both before and after the conversion to CEFMS, USACE\n used the straight-line method of depreciation for revolving fund assets.\n\n\nCriteria\n Change in Depreciation Method. GAAP 1 in Accounting Principles Board\n (APB) Opinion No. 20, July 1971, paragraph 9, states that an example of a change\n in accounting principle is, \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6a change in depreciation method\xe2\x80\xa6.\xe2\x80\x9d The\n authoritative literature specifies a general rule that a change in accounting\n principle requires an adjustment to the financial statements in the year of the\n change. That is, the cumulative effect of the change should be reported in the\n year in which the principle changes.\n\n Correction of an Error. The same Opinion, in paragraph 13, describes errors in\n financial statements and states, \xe2\x80\x9cerrors result from mathematical mistakes;\n mistakes in the application of an accounting principle, or oversight or misuse of\n facts that existed at the time the financial statements were prepared.\xe2\x80\x9d Correction\n of an error requires a restatement of prior period statements used in comparative\n financial statements.\n\n\nReliability of the Reported Accumulated Depreciation Amount\n The $12.5 billion presented in the USACE FY 2002 Financial Statements for\n accumulated depreciation for buildings and structures was not reliable. We\n sought to verify the reported depreciation by comparing the amount of\n depreciation recorded for the assets comprising the $12.5 billion of accumulated\n depreciation with the amount calculated using the straight-line method. We\n determined that the principal reason for the differences was that when USACE\n changed from composite to straight-line depreciation of individual assets, it did\n not make the required accounting adjustments.\n\n\n1\n The primary GAAP source relating to the change in depreciation methods and the accounting response is\n contained in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting Changes,\xe2\x80\x9d July 1971. While the\n Opinion establishes that a change in depreciation method is a change in accounting principle, it also\n defines a correction of an error. Further, it establishes what responses to take for both a change in\n accounting principle and correction of an error.\n\n\n 3\n\x0cCompliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles\n USACE did not comply with GAAP when it converted from the composite to\n straight-line method of depreciation. The conversions took place district-by-\n district over several years beginning in December 1993 and concluding in March\n 1998. The appropriate accounting response under these circumstances would\n have been for each district to make the cumulative adjustment. The converting\n district should have recalculated depreciation for each of the individual assets\n using the straight-line method of depreciation, compared the calculated amount\n with the recorded amount, and totaled the differences for all the hydropower\n assets. The combined differences for the individual hydropower assets would\n have been the amount to record as a cumulative adjustment. Along with the\n cumulative adjustment, the districts should have adjusted the amount of\n accumulated depreciation for each asset at the beginning of the year in which the\n conversion took place.\n\n USACE Calculations. During the change to CEFMS, each converting district\n began separately depreciating the individual assets as opposed to depreciating\n them together as a feature. The resulting total depreciation from a feature was\n then allocated to each of the individual assets. Once the individual asset was\n loaded into CEFMS, the system began to calculate all future depreciation charges\n on a straight-line basis. In addition, the districts began to depreciate previously\n un-depreciated \xe2\x80\x9cother civil assets.\xe2\x80\x9d The districts calculated and recorded a catch-\n up amount for the depreciation that they should have recorded for each asset as of\n the end of the fiscal year preceding the conversion.2 Once the catch up amount\n was loaded into CEFMS, the system performed the calculations for the\n depreciation expense during the conversion year.\n\n Depreciation Allocation. Thirteen of the 14 districts with hydropower assets did\n not adjust the accumulated depreciation for the hydropower assets to the amount\n that they should have accumulated, had the straight-line method been in place\n since the date the asset entered service. Rather, they split up the features\xe2\x80\x99 assets,\n established individual records for the assets and allocated the existing\n accumulated depreciation for the feature to the individual assets. Documents\n provided by the districts clearly showed that the amount of accumulated\n depreciation calculated using the old and new depreciation methods was not the\n same, that is, an adjustment was required to modify the recorded amount to the\n amount that would have been recorded had the new method been used since the\n asset was placed-in-service.\n\n\n\n\n2\n APB No. 20 states in paragraph 13 that a change from a not generally accepted accounting principle to\n one that is generally accepted is a correction of an error. In general, depreciation is appropriate for long-\n lived assets and the change from not depreciating other civil assets to depreciating them meets the\n definition of correction of an error. However, the DoD policy on depreciating general property, plant,\n and equipment before 1998 only required depreciation on assets used by the Defense Business Operations\n Fund activities and USACE was therefore in compliance with the DoD policy.\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cHydropower Depreciation Balances\n Estimating Accumulated Depreciation. Because USACE did not make the\n required adjustments, USACE may have misstated the accumulated depreciation\n for hydropower assets in its financial statements by at least $293 million (net).\n The absolute value of the differences for the assets that comprise the\n $293 million (net) amount is $673.2 million. To estimate the $293 million (net)\n we relied on the calculations of a report that exists within CEFMS and which is\n available to each of the USACE districts. The depreciation verification report\n (DEPREVER) calculates the straight-line depreciation for each individual asset\n possessed by the district. The report then compares the amount of recorded\n depreciation in CEFMS with the amount calculated on a straight-line basis. For\n each asset, the report displays both the amount of depreciation difference and the\n percent of difference. Each month the calculated amount increases when the\n district runs the report because the calculation uses the months in service times a\n monthly rate.3 In order to comply with our recommendations, USACE will have\n to modify the report to calculate the number of months in service as of\n September 30, 2001, rather than the month the report is run. USACE officials\n have stated that they modified the report to calculate the months in service as of\n September 30, 2001.\n\n Variables Affecting Depreciation Calculations. The accuracy of\n both the CEFMS and DEPREVER report depreciation calculations were\n dependent on variables that we did not verify when we determined the difference\n between the recorded and straight-line depreciation. One significant variable was\n the book cost for assets that entered service before the conversion to CEFMS.\n The book cost of these assets may include improvements that the district had not\n separately recorded in CEFMS, and which, therefore, are not recognized for the\n DEPREVER report calculation. Two other variables CEFMS and the\n DEPREVER report used for depreciation calculations were the placed-in-service\n date and the asset useful life. We discuss the useful life variable in finding C of\n this report.\n\n Unrecorded Improvements. Unrecorded improvements to an\n asset, which may be included in an asset\xe2\x80\x99s book cost, can cause estimated\n depreciation to vary widely from the recorded depreciation. Presumably, USACE\n used the asset value, including improvements completed before converting to\n CEFMS, to calculate the accumulated depreciation recorded at the time of\n conversion.4 Assets with improvements completed before USACE converted to\n CEFMS would generally have less recorded accumulated depreciation than the\n DEPREVER calculated amount. The reason for this difference is that the\n DEPREVER report assumes that the entire book cost, except for assets with\n additions and betterments recorded in CEFMS, should be depreciated from the\n3\n For an asset without a recorded addition and betterment, the monthly rate is simply the book cost less its\n salvage value divided by the service or useful life. The monthly rate is constant unless the useful life,\n salvage value, or book cost changes; for example, the book cost increases because of an addition or\n betterment.\n4\n If USACE calculated the pre-CEFMS asset value properly, the depreciation for the asset would only\n depreciate the improvement from the time the improvement was completed. That being true, the\n accumulated depreciation at the time of conversion would have been less than the amount derived from a\n simple straight-line calculation that used a book cost that was the total of the original acquisition cost and\n the cost of the betterment and the initial or original acquisition date.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c date the asset was placed-in-service. Accordingly, if part of the book cost\xe2\x80\x94the\n addition and betterment cost\xe2\x80\x94was from a date later than the date the asset was\n placed-in-service, the DEPREVER report overstated the calculated depreciation\n amount. However, improvements completed after conversion to CEFMS should\n be separately recorded in CEFMS, and consequently the DEPREVER report\n properly accounts for them when calculating straight-line depreciation.\n\n Placed-in-Service Dates. Another significant variable in the\n calculation of depreciation is the placed-in-service date. The date recorded in\n CEFMS may not have been the date originally used to calculate the depreciation\n accumulated before USACE converted to CEFMS. Even with no improvements\n or changes in depreciation life, different dates designated as placed-in-service\n dates will result in a different accumulated depreciation amount for the same\n asset. Our conclusion is that the DEPREVER provides a legitimate baseline\n against which to compare recorded depreciation, but that USACE must compare\n and verify the accumulated depreciation for each asset individually.\n\n\nNon-Hydropower Assets\n Significant unexpected variances between the calculated and recorded\n depreciation also exist for non-hydropower assets that USACE, with the\n exception of revolving fund assets, was not depreciating before converting to\n CEFMS; and for which the only depreciation method has been the straight-line\n method. Although our audit fieldwork concentrated on the depreciation variances\n for hydropower assets, an examination of the information in the DEPREVER\n reports indicates that differences between the recorded depreciation and\n calculated depreciation amounts are not limited to hydropower assets. For\n example, for the 14 districts with hydropower assets, the net difference for\n hydropower assets was $293 million. Those same districts also had non-\n hydropower assets. When we combined the non-hydropower and hydropower\n assets\xe2\x80\x99 differences for the 14 districts, the net difference between the recorded and\n calculated amounts was $299.7 million. The remaining districts that did not have\n hydropower assets also had variances between the recorded and calculated\n depreciation amounts. Because the assets in these districts were limited to\n revolving fund or other civil assets, the change in accounting principle cannot be\n the cause of these differences. Based on our limited analysis, the recorded\n depreciation amounts vary from the straight-line calculated depreciation amounts\n by approximately $49.7 million (net) in excess depreciation for non-hydropower\n assets exclusive of revolving fund assets. Although the differences occurred\n primarily at three districts, all districts had some variances.\n\n\nNecessary USACE Action\n USACE should not just substitute the DEPREVER calculation for the\n accumulated depreciation amount for each asset. If the book cost of an asset\n contains an improvement that was completed before the CEFMS conversion, or if\n the placed-in-service date is not correct; an adjustment will be required to\n establish the correct amount of depreciation as of September 30, 2001. Once\n USACE corrects the amount of depreciation in CEFMS, USACE must then\n\n\n 6\n\x0c recalculate the depreciation expense for FYs 2002 and 2003 based on item-by-\n item corrections.\n\n Because 13 districts did not make the required adjustments at the time of\n conversion to CEFMS, the change now required is a correction of an error rather\n than a cumulative adjustment. The practical impact of treating the adjustment as\n a correction of an error is that USACE will need to correct both the FYs 2002 and\n 2003 depreciation amount. That is, correction of an error requires a restatement\n of any prior years used in comparative financial statements. Before it can\n correctly calculate depreciation for both FY 2002 and FY 2003, USACE must\n adjust accumulated depreciation for all its buildings and structures to the amount\n that should have been recorded as of September 30, 2001.\n\n The method CEFMS uses to calculate monthly depreciation expense makes it\n necessary for USACE to first adjust accumulated depreciation to September 30,\n 2001. CEFMS calculates the monthly expense by dividing the net book value of\n the asset by the number of months of remaining service life. Net Book Value is\n the book cost, less accumulated depreciation and salvage value. Remaining\n service life is the assigned service life of the asset less the number of months the\n asset has already been in service. Consequently, when the net book value is\n misstated, the monthly calculation for depreciation expense will also be wrong.\n Because the districts did not change the accumulated depreciation for hydropower\n assets at the time of conversion, the accumulated depreciation was incorrect as of\n September 30, 2001. As a result, the FY 2002 depreciation expense, which will\n be included as part of the FY 2003 financial statements, was wrong and must be\n corrected. Similarly, USACE districts without hydropower assets or those\n districts with both hydropower and non-hydropower assets will have to adjust\n depreciation for non-hydropower assets to the amount that they should have\n accumulated to September 30, 2001, and recalculate the expense for FY 2002 and\n FY 2003. Corrections to the depreciation amounts for these assets is also a\n correction of an error and requires that USACE restate the prior year statements\n used for comparative purposes.\n\n\nSummary\n When USACE converted to CEFMS, it changed its method for depreciating\n hydropower assets. USACE then started depreciating other civil assets such as\n buildings and structures that were not considered revolving fund or hydropower\n assets. A change in depreciation method is defined by GAAP as a change in\n accounting principle. The proper accounting treatment when changing the\n depreciation method is to make a cumulative adjustment for the difference\n between the recorded amount of depreciation, and the amount that would have\n been recorded, had the new method been in effect since the asset was placed-in-\n service. The USACE districts did not make the required cumulative adjustment\n and, as a result, the amount of accumulated depreciation currently recorded for\n hydropower assets is significantly, and possibly materially, misstated. USACE\n districts without hydropower assets and those districts with both hydropower and\n non-hydropower assets have variances for non-hydropower assets that should be\n examined and corrected. Correction of the variances for hydropower assets will\n require each USACE district to review the accumulated depreciation for each\n asset rather than simply substituting the DEPREVER straight-line calculated\n\n\n 7\n\x0c amount. USACE cannot just substitute the DEPREVER calculation because if\n the book cost of an asset includes an improvement completed before the CEFMS\n conversion, a manual adjustment will be required to adjust the beginning CEFMS\n balance. Because each district did not make the required adjustment at the time of\n conversion, the change now required is a correction of an error rather than a\n cumulative adjustment. The practical impact of treating the adjustment as\n correction of an error is that USACE will need to correct the FY 2002\n depreciation expense as well as the FY 2003 expense. That is, correction of an\n error requires a restatement of any prior years used in comparative financial\n statements. For the non-hydropower assets and non-revolving fund assets, the\n districts should be able to rely on the DEPREVER calculation to supply the\n amount of depreciation to record because the straight-line method is the only\n method that USACE has used to depreciate these assets. Revolving fund asset\n adjustments are subject to a constraint similar to the hydropower assets, that is,\n any improvements completed before the CEFMS conversion must be considered\n before adjusting the recorded depreciation.\n\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Audit\n Response\n A. We recommend that the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:\n\n 1. Modify the depreciation variance report to calculate the amount of\n accumulated straight-line depreciation that should have been accrued as of\n September 30, 2001.\n\n Management Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and stated that\n the depreciation variance report was modified to calculate the amount of\n accumulated straight-line depreciation accrued as of September 30, 2001.\n\n 2. Compare the accumulated depreciation for each asset with the\n amount calculated in Recommendation 1. and determine if an adjustment to\n the accumulated depreciation is appropriate.\n\n Management Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and stated that\n the necessary reviews were performed and that over $489 million in adjustments\n were made. The details of the adjustments were provided to the IG DoD.\n\n Audit Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments were responsive.\n However, we questioned the completeness of the review, particularly for Power\n Marketing Administration districts such as Walla Walla. We request that USACE\n assert to the IG DoD auditors whether all required adjustments were made. For\n districts where substantial variances still exist between the depreciation variance\n report and the recorded depreciation, we request that USACE provide the results\n and reasons for the remaining variances to the Office of the Inspector General of\n the Department of Defense for review and concurrence.\n\n 3. Adjust the accumulated depreciation for each asset for which there\n is a difference identified in Recommendation 2. to the amount that should\n have been recorded as of September 30, 2001.\n\n\n 8\n\x0cManagement Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and made over\n$489 million in adjustments.\n\nAudit Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments were responsive.\nHowever, we request that USACE assert to the IG DoD auditors whether all\nrequired adjustments were made. For districts where substantial variances still\nexist between the depreciation variance report and the recorded depreciation, we\nrequest that USACE provide the results and reasons for the remaining variances\nto the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for review\nand concurrence.\n\n 4. Recalculate the FYs 2002 and 2003 depreciation amount based on\nthe net book value and number of useful life months remaining as of\nSeptember 30, 2001.\n\nManagement Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and made over\n$489 million in adjustments to the FY 2003 accumulated depreciation amount.\nThis adjustment corrected the FY 2003 ending balance and FY 2004 beginning\nbalance for accumulated depreciation.\n\nAudit Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments were responsive.\nHowever, we request that USACE assert to the IG DoD auditors whether all\nrequired adjustments were made. For districts where substantial variances still\nexist between the depreciation variance report and the recorded depreciation, we\nrequest that USACE provide the results and reasons for the remaining variances\nto the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for review\nand concurrence.\n\n 5. Disclose the FY 2002 restatement as a footnote to the FY 2003\nfinancial statements.\n\nManagement Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and stated that\nthe USACE will footnote the depreciation adjustment in their FY 2004 financial\nstatements.\n\nAudit Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments were responsive.\nHowever, we request that USACE assert to the IG DoD auditors whether all\nrequired adjustments were made. For districts where substantial variances still\nexist between the depreciation variance report and the recorded depreciation, we\nrequest that USACE provide the results and reasons for the remaining variances\nto the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for review\nand concurrence. We do accept the fact that the FY 2003 financial statements\nhad been published as of the issuance of the responses to the draft of this report.\nTherefore, we accept the footnote to the FY 2004 financial statements.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c B. Disclosure of the U.S. Army Corps of\n Engineers and the Power Marketing\n Administration Relationship\n USACE did not adequately disclose its relationship with the PMAs in\n USACE FY 2002 financial statement notes. The relationship entails the\n PMAs\xe2\x80\x99 use of some of the assets owned and operated by USACE to\n market electrical power produced by USACE. The disclosures in the\n Management and Discussion Analysis overview section of the financial\n statements were inadequate because USACE did not update and enhance\n the PMA information. As a result, USACE has not met the\n characteristics of understandability, relevance, consistency, and\n comparability in its disclosure of the USACE and PMA relationship in\n the financial statements. In particular, the omission of significant and\n material accounting information regarding USACE and the PMAs\n distorted the financial report information.\n\n\nCriteria\n The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts, No. 1: \xe2\x80\x9cObjectives of\n Federal Financial Reporting,\xe2\x80\x9d Chapter 6: \xe2\x80\x9cQualitative Characteristics of\n Information in Financial Reports,\xe2\x80\x9d September 2, 1993, paragraph 156 states:\n Financial reporting is the means of communicating with those who use\n financial information. For this communication to be effective,\n information in financial reports must have these basic characteristics:\n understandability, reliability, relevance, timeliness, consistency and\n comparability.\n\n Specific note disclosure criteria within the DoD 7000.14-R \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial\n Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d volume 6B, chapter 10, January 2002, that would\n apply to the disclosure omissions are as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Note 10. General Property, Plant, Equipment, Net. Section 101202. F. Other\n Information states, \xe2\x80\x9cDisclose on line 2 of this note other information\n necessary to understand the General PP&E line item on the reporting entity\xe2\x80\x99s\n Balance Sheet.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Note 1G. Accounting For Intragovernmental Activities. Section 100302\n states, \xe2\x80\x9cEach reporting entity shall review its financial processes, systems\n and data, and modify and expand, as necessary, the sample disclosure\n statement so that each statement is a complete and accurate representation of\n the issue being addressed.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Note 19F. Exchange Revenue. Section 102118 states, \xe2\x80\x9cReporting entities\n that provide goods and services to the public or another government entity\n shall disclose specific information relating to the pricing policies and any\n expected losses under goods made to order.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Note 24. Other Disclosures. Section 102604 states, \xe2\x80\x9cAny additional\n disclosure deemed necessary by the reporting entity in order to provide a\n better understanding of information presented elsewhere in the statements\n shall be numbered consecutively 24B, 24C, etc.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\nAdequacy of Disclosed Information\n The FY 2002 financial statements did not contain adequate disclosure of the\n relationship between USACE and the PMAs. Specifically, USACE did not\n disclose the following information.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The financial statements should disclose the significance and materiality\n of the PMA related assets. There are 24,000 individual PMA related\n assets within the USACE asset universe of 57,000 items. These PMA\n related assets are valued at $10.3 billion in comparison to the total\n USACE real property asset value of $30.5 billion.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 USACE maintains separate accounting records within CEFMS in order to\n prepare annual financial statements, and to report this financial statement\n data for the 75 separate power projects to the PMAs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The PMAs submitted revenue to the U.S. Treasury on behalf of USACE.\n The revenue was derived from sales of power generated by USACE\n assets. In the USACE 2002 Annual Report, USACE reported the revenues\n in the Management Discussion and Analysis, Profile of Civil Works,\n Business Programs Section, but not in the financial statement notes\n section. The Management Discussion and Analysis section stated, \xe2\x80\x9cIn FY\n 2002 the Federal PMAs returned $700 million to the U.S. Treasury from\n power sales.\xe2\x80\x9d We think that USACE should report financial information\n of this magnitude in the notes section of the financial statements.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 USACE received direct appropriation funding from the Bonneville PMA\n for operations and maintenance costs of the USACE assets related to the\n Bonneville PMA power projects. In December 1997, Bonneville and\n USACE entered into a ten-year agreement for direct funding that is\n expected to result in roughly $100 million per year in direct payments by\n Bonneville, beginning in fiscal year 1999.\n\n\nPast Disclosures\n These disclosure omissions occurred because in prior financial statements, the\n Army Audit Agency made the disclosure about the significance and materiality of\n PMA related assets but not about the financial statement preparation and\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c revenues. It is probable that USACE did not report PMA related asset\n information in FY 2002 because USACE had not reported this information in the\n past.\n\n\nImportance of the Relationship\n The USACE financial statements, as written, do not make readers aware of the\n magnitude and materiality of USACE involvement with power production.\n Furthermore, in respect to the revenue submissions and direct appropriation\n funding by the PMAs, the omission of this important financial information serves\n to distort the true financial picture of USACE.\n\n\nConclusion\n USACE has not met the characteristics of understandability, relevance,\n consistency, and comparability in the financial statements in its disclosure of the\n USACE and PMA relationships. In particular, the omission of significant and\n material accounting information regarding the USACE and PMAs has resulted in\n ineffective communication on financial report information.\n\n\nRecommendations and Management Comments\n B. We recommend that the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\n\n 1. Disclose in the financial statement notes those accounts affected by\n the relationship between the assets owned and operated by the U.S. Army\n Corps of Engineers and the Power Marketing Administrations\xe2\x80\x99 marketing of\n electrical power derived from some of these assets. Specifically, the U.S.\n Army Corps of Engineers should disclose:\n\n a. Significance and materiality of Power Marketing\n Administration related assets in Note 10, General Property, Plant, and\n Equipment, Section F. Other Information.\n\n b. Maintenance of separate accounting records and\n preparation of individual financial statements for 75 separate power projects\n in Note 1G, Accounting for Intragovernmental Activities.\n\n c. Revenue submissions made by the Power Marketing\n Administrations on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Note 19F,\n Exchange Revenue.\n\n d. Direct appropriation funding made by the Power\n Marketing Administrations in Note 24, Other Disclosures.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cManagement Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and stated that\nthey disclosed the facts as appropriate in the footnotes of the FY 2003 Financial\nStatements or the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the FY 2003\nFinancial Statements.\n\n 2. Provide a detailed explanation of the relationship between U.S.\nArmy Corps of Engineers and Power Marketing Administrations in the\nManagement Discussion and Analysis section of the financial statements.\n\nManagement Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and stated that\nthe relationship between USACE and the Power Marketing Administration was\nfurther explained in their FY 2003 Management Discussion and Analysis section\nof the FY 2003 Financial Statements.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c C. Asset Useful Life\n USACE did not comply with the DoD 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial\n Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d (FMR), August 2000 guidance concerning what\n \xe2\x80\x9cuseful life\xe2\x80\x9d periods to use when depreciating its buildings and structures,\n such as dams, locks and hydropower generation assets. This occurred\n because USACE established its own useful life tables for both hydropower\n and revolving fund assets, asserting that it followed the Federal Energy\n Regulatory Commission guidelines for asset useful life periods. In\n addition, USACE did not establish useful life period tables for \xe2\x80\x9cOther\n Civil\xe2\x80\x9d assets. As a result, the accumulated depreciation shown in USACE\n financial statements would be understated by as much as $8.2 billion if the\n DoD maximum useful life periods policy of 40 years was followed.\n\n\nDepreciation Useful Life Guidance\n DoD Guidance. DoD guidance for depreciation in relation to useful life is\n contained in the \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Financial Management Regulation\xe2\x80\x9d volume 4, chapter 6,\n \xe2\x80\x9cProperty, Plant, and Equipment,\xe2\x80\x9d August 2000. For computing depreciation on\n General PP&E, the \xe2\x80\x9cDoD Standard Recovery Periods Table,\xe2\x80\x9d prescribes recovery\n (useful life) periods of 5, 10, 20, and 40 years. It also permits depreciation over a\n period of less than 5 years under limited conditions. (See Appendix D for the\n table.)\n\n USACE Guidance. The USACE depreciation guidance is set forth in\n ER 37-2-10, \xe2\x80\x9cFinancial Administration - Accounting and Reporting - Civil Works\n Activities,\xe2\x80\x9d April 1, 1969. ER 37-2-10 prescribes the accounting systems and\n related procedures for all USACE civil works activities. It is applicable to all\n division and district offices. Although USACE first published ER 37-2-10 on\n April 1, 1969, it has since changed the regulation 89 times. USACE updated most\n of the tables prescribing depreciation intervals in 1995, although some of the\n useful life guidance is dated to 1991.\n\n Specific USACE guidance concerning useful lives is in ER 37-2-10, chapter 15,\n Appendix B, \xe2\x80\x9cMinimum and Maximum Useful Life Years,\xe2\x80\x9d October 1, 1991, and\n chapter 31, Appendix A, section 31-A-5, \xe2\x80\x9cPlant Items,\xe2\x80\x9d April 21, 1995.\n Chapter 15 includes policy for revolving fund structures, which vary from a\n maximum of 10 years for a temporary structure, to 20 to 50 years for permanent\n structures. The information in chapter 31 is more detailed and includes intervals\n up to 100 years. USACE district personnel assign useful lives to assets by\n reference to ER 37-2-10.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cUSACE Compliance with Guidance\n USACE did not comply with FMR guidance concerning what useful life periods\n to employ for depreciating its buildings and structures. Table 2 shows the useful\n life periods USACE was using and the number and dollar value of the assets in\n each useful life grouping. USACE was depreciating more than 75 percent of its\n assets with useful life periods that exceeded the DoD maximum of 40 years.\n From a dollar perspective, USACE was depreciating more than 93 percent of its\n assets employing useful life periods that exceeded the DoD maximum.\n\n\n Table 2. Buildings & Structures Universe\n September 30, 2002\n ($ Millions)\n Useful Life Number of Percent of Total Percentage of\n Book Cost\n (Years) Properties Number Total Cost\n\n 0 - 40 14,110 24.5% $ 2,108 6.9%\n 40 - 50 24,544 42.7% 9,987 32.7%\n 50 - 75 365 0.6% 631 2.1%\n 75 - 100 18,475 32.1% 16,975 55.5%\n 100 + 40 0.1% 848 2.8%\n\n Total 57,534 100.0% $30,549 100.0%\n\n\n FMR Prescribed Useful Lives. USACE was not employing the FMR prescribed\n useful life periods. USACE has never asked for a waiver from the useful life\n criteria in the FMR. In addition, the useful life periods that USACE did employ\n were not generally in consonance with other Government or private sector useful\n life periods. For example, the Department of Energy stated in its, \xe2\x80\x9cPerformance\n and Accountability Report, FY 2001,\xe2\x80\x9d that for structures and facilities, it used\n depreciation intervals of 25-50 years. In addition, in October 2002, the General\n Accounting Office (GAO) reported the results of its survey of capitalization and\n useful life policies for both private sector and Government organizations.\n\n GAO Survey Results. The GAO results are described in GAO-03-42, \xe2\x80\x9cFinancial\n Management-Survey of Capitalization Threshold and Other Policies for Property,\n Plant and Equipment,\xe2\x80\x9d October 15, 2002. The GAO surveyed policies in both\n private sector and Government organizations. GAO found that most\n organizations within the private sector apply a maximum useful life of between\n 40 and 50 years for buildings, and between 30 and 40 years for other structures.\n The same survey showed that most Government organizations have a maximum\n useful life of between 30 and 40 years for buildings and between 20 and 40 years\n for other structures. The report notes that the Federal Accounting Standards\n Advisory Board does not prescribe specific classifications of estimated useful life\n periods. Instead, it requires that useful life consider economic, environmental,\n and technological factors such as physical wear and tear and obsolescence.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c GAO also identified several policy differences attributable to the variety of assets\n owned by the entities that participated in its survey, rather than any systematic\n differences in useful life classifications.\n\n\nFoundation for USACE Guidance\n USACE had established its own useful life tables for both hydropower and\n revolving fund assets, asserting that it followed the Federal Energy Regulatory\n Commission guidelines for useful life.5 As discussed in Finding A, USACE was\n primarily depreciating the hydropower category of assets before it converted to\n CEFMS in the 1990s. In our discussions with the USACE staff about the useful\n life periods they were using, the staff asserted that USACE had established the\n useful life periods years ago in consultation between its staff and the Federal\n Energy Regulatory Commission staffs. However, USACE was not able to\n provide documentation to support its assertions.\n\n Further surrounding the basis for the USACE useful life intervals is the absence\n of guidance in ER 37-2-10 about what useful lives to employ for depreciating the\n non-hydropower and non-revolving fund assets labeled as \xe2\x80\x9cOther Civil\xe2\x80\x9d assets in\n Table 1. While chapter 15 contains guidance for the revolving fund assets and\n chapter 31 for hydropower assets, ER 37-2-10 has no specific chapter for the\n two-thirds of the assets that are not revolving fund or hydropower assets. By\n inspection of the other civil assets useful lives, we can state that the useful lives\n for these assets are also not in compliance. The 57,534 items shown in Table 1\n include 32,357 6assets that are other civil assets. Figure 1 shows that of the\n 32,357 assets, only 25.6 percent have an assigned useful life of 40 years\n (480 months) or less, the DoD maximum useful life.\n\n Figure 1. Useful Life Assigned to USACE Other Civil Assets\n\n 100.0%\n 15,000 100.0%\n No. of Records\n\n\n\n\n Cumulative\n\n\n\n\n 12,000 80.0%\n 69.9%\n Percent\n\n\n\n\n 9,000 60.0%\n 6,000 25.6 % 40.0%\n 3,000 20.0%\n 0 0.0%\n 0-480 481-961 962-1442\n Useful Life in Months\n\n\n\n5\n The Financial Management Regulation (FMR) table of recovery periods (useful life periods) presented at\n Appendix C was not published until 1998. Before that date, the FMR stated that useful life was not based\n on a standard table of useful life periods, but on actual or planned retirement or replacement practices.\n The FMR guidance published in 1995 did, however, limit the maximum useful life to 40 years; USACE\n should have modified its useful life tables to not exceed 40 years, or have requested a waiver.\n6\n To facilitate presentation, two items included in the total of 32,357 assets in the other civil category\n shown in Table 1 with an assigned useful life of greater than 1442 months were excluded from the chart.\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Because of the relationship between USACE and the Power Marketing\n Administrations, there may be a supportable basis for considering Federal Energy\n Regulatory Commission guidance as a foundation for establishing useful lives for\n hydropower assets; however, the case is weakened for other civil assets.\n\n Noncompliance with ER 37-2-10. We performed two tests of controls over the\n establishment of useful life. The first test was to ensure that the asset had a useful\n life of 2 years or greater and the second test was to determine whether the useful\n life recorded in CEFMS matched the useful life prescribed in ER 37-2-10.\n During our fieldwork, we statistically sampled 80 records from a universe of\n 5,842 records. These records were part of the total universe of 57,534 records for\n buildings and structures, but our sample universe was limited to those records that\n had changed between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2002. Of the\n 80 buildings or other structures still in use as of September 30, 2002, we tested\n 50 for proper controls in establishing the asset\xe2\x80\x99s useful life. The remaining\n 30 assets were either not in service as of September 30, 2002, or were no longer\n physically present.\n\n All 50 assets had useful lives greater than 2 years. Eleven of the 50 failed control\n testing because the useful life in CEFMS differed from ER 37-2-10 chapter 31,\n Appendix A. Nine of the eleven buildings and structures had a useful life less\n than what was required by ER 37-2-10, chapter 31, Appendix A. The remaining\n two assets had a useful life greater than prescribed in ER 37-2-10 chapter 31,\n Appendix A. Based on these results, USACE has yet to direct the districts to\n validate the current useful lives to determine if the assigned useful lives are in\n substantial compliance with ER 37-2-10 guidance.\n\n USACE Uncommon Items. USACE does possess some real property assets for\n which longer useful lives may be appropriate. These assets such as dams, locks,\n levees, and hydropower generation assets do not readily fit within the useful life\n categories in the DoD table at Appendix C, and USACE should consider asking\n for a waiver from the DoD requirements. However, only assets that have a\n demonstrated useful life longer than the DoD prescribed 40 years should have\n longer useful life established; that is, if the asset clearly does not fit within the\n DoD categories. USACE should perform a study of these assets to determine and\n establish meaningful useful lives for depreciating the assets. Once established,\n USACE should seek either a waiver from the DoD Comptroller or a change to the\n FMR to incorporate useful lives for these assets.\n\n\nConsequence of Longer Useful Lives\n As a result of not complying with DoD policy guidance on useful lives, the\n USACE accumulated depreciation shown on its financial statements could be\n understated by as much as $8.2 billion, (based upon useful life not exceeding\n 40 years, the DoD maximum). However, USACE asserts that the depreciation\n intervals in the FMR are not appropriate for some of its assets. While we offer no\n conclusion about this assertion, we recommend that USACE demonstrate that the\n DoD FMR intervals are not appropriate for some of its assets and, further, what\n intervals are appropriate for those same assets, as well as the \xe2\x80\x9cother civil\xe2\x80\x9d assets.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cConclusion\n Useful life policies should ensure that USACE depreciates its assets over a\n reasonable useful life and hence allocate depreciation expense to the appropriate\n period. USACE should base decisions about useful life on a reasonable estimate\n of how long an asset can actually be used. A majority of the assets currently in\n the USACE buildings and structures account can reasonably comply with the\n useful life established by DoD regulation and should not be exempt from these\n requirements. However, the USACE has assets that, while currently in use, have\n already exceeded the useful lives established by the DoD policy guidance, and\n require longer useful lives to be established. We think that assets such as dams,\n dikes, power plants, etc, should have useful lives established for them. However,\n these useful lives need to be formally established, approved by the DoD\n Comptroller, and used sparingly.\n\n\nRecommendation and Management Comments\n C. We recommend that the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:\n\n 1. Perform a study to establish which U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\n assets should not be depreciated using the useful lives established by the\n Financial Management Regulation, and determine the appropriate useful life\n (operational) for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assets such as dams, bridges,\n and hydropower generation assets.\n\n Management Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and noted that\n the USACE has undergone a study to determine the appropriate useful life for all\n USACE-owned assets and will provide the results to the IG DoD when completed\n for review and concurrence.\n\n 2. Upon completion of the study in Recommendation C.1. request\n either a waiver from the Financial Management Regulation requirements or\n else a revision of the Financial Management Regulation to incorporate the\n additional depreciation useful lives.\n\n Management Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and stated that\n with the completion of the study, USACE will request a waiver from the DoD\n Financial Management Regulation.\n\n 3. Develop a plan to select a random sample of buildings and\n structures in order to verify that assigned depreciation intervals are\n consistent with policy guidance.\n\n Management Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and agreed to\n develop a plan to verify that the assigned depreciation intervals are consistent\n with the new policy, which will be written based on the results of the study.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c 4. Change ER 37-2-10 to incorporate the DoD 7000.14-R, \xe2\x80\x9cDoD\nFinancial Management Regulation,\xe2\x80\x9d useful life standards to include specific\nguidance for the depreciation of other civil assets.\n\nManagement Comments. The Commander, USACE concurred and noted that\nonce the study is completed and agreed to by the IG DoD, USACE will request a\nwaiver from the DoD Financial Management Regulation based on USACE-\nunique mission requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\n This is one in a series of projects to perform agreed-upon procedures to verify\n beginning balances for the audit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil\n Works, FY 2003 Financial Statements. Originally, our review was limited to\n verifying the FY 2003 beginning balance for the accumulated depreciation of the\n USACE buildings and structures and was dependent upon other audit teams to\n verify the acquisition cost and in-service dates for those assets. We identified and\n analyzed the variances between the amount of reported depreciation and the\n amount of expected straight-line depreciation, which is the depreciation method\n USACE uses to depreciate its buildings and structures. During the course of our\n audit fieldwork, we identified deficiencies in the financial statement disclosures\n and added work concerning financial statement disclosures to our fieldwork and\n reporting.\n\n We reviewed Statements of Federal Accounting Concepts No. 1, \xe2\x80\x9cObjectives of\n Federal Financial Reporting,\xe2\x80\x9d September 1993; Statements of Federal Financial\n Accounting Standards No. 6, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment,\xe2\x80\x9d\n November 1995; Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 21,\n \xe2\x80\x9cReporting Corrections of Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles;\xe2\x80\x9d and\n Accounting Principles Board No. 20, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting Changes,\xe2\x80\x9d July 1971. We\n reviewed the Corps of Engineers Regulation 37-2-10, chapter 15,\xe2\x80\x9dRevolving\n Fund Fixed Asset Accounting,\xe2\x80\x9d October 1991; and chapter 31, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting\n Treatment for Multiple-Purpose Projects,\xe2\x80\x9d April 1994 as well as the USACE\n conversion manual, appendix L, \xe2\x80\x9cMulti-Purpose Power Accounting\xe2\x80\x9d, August\n 1996. We also reviewed the DoD Financial Management Regulation, volume 4,\n chapter 6, \xe2\x80\x9cProperty, Plant, and Equipment,\xe2\x80\x9d August 2000. We reviewed the\n Corps record retention and accounting policies, and we considered the reports of\n the independent auditors of the power marketing administrations in our review of\n the USACE relationship to the Power Marketing Administrations.\n\n Our team visited five USACE districts - Baltimore, Maryland; Walla Walla,\n Washington; Portland, Oregon; Huntington, West Virginia; and Nashville,\n Tennessee. We also held meetings with headquarters personnel in Washington,\n D.C. Our work included procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the\n CEFMS buildings and structures data received from IG DoD auditors in\n Indianapolis, Indiana and provided by the USACE accountants in Huntsville,\n Alabama. To understand the annual changes in accumulated depreciation, we\n reviewed current and prior year financial statements and requested a client-\n prepared schedule of the annual depreciation expense and prior period\n adjustments. We requested explanations for the depreciation variances of\n judgmentally selected assets from each of four districts and prepared a schedule\n of hydropower assets, showing the possible variances between recorded\n depreciation and straight-line depreciation. Our review of the depreciation\n verification report's algorithm established that the report provides a valid baseline\n for the analysis of asset depreciation if the source data is accurate. Finally, we\n assessed the USACE compliance with the DoD Financial Management\n Regulation in establishing asset useful lives and we reviewed actions relating to\n the conversion from COEMIS to CEFMS.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cWe performed this audit from December 2002 through August 2003 in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards; however, our\nscope was limited in that we did not include tests of management controls.\n\nUse of Computer-Processed Data. We used computer-processed data from\nCEFMS for this audit; however, we were not able to confirm the reliability of the\nbuildings and structures data. The lack of reliable data did not permit us to\nestablish the FY 2003 beginning balance for the accumulated depreciation of the\nUSACE buildings and structures. Other reports on general and application\ncontrols have revealed weaknesses in CEFMS.\n\nGeneral Accounting Office High-Risk Area. The General Accounting Office\nhas identified high-risk areas in the Department of Defense. This report provides\ncoverage of the DoD Financial Management high-risk area.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cAppendix B. Prior Coverage\n During the last 5 years, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector\n General of the Department of Defense (IG DoD) have issued reports related to the\n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, Financial Statements. Unrestricted\n GAO reports can be accessed over the Internet at http:www.gao.gov/.\n Unrestricted IG DoD reports can be accessed at\n http:www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports.\n\n\nGAO\n GAO Report No. GAO-03-42, \xe2\x80\x9cFinancial Management-Survey of Capitalization\n Threshold and Other Policies for Property, Plant and Equipment,\xe2\x80\x9d October 15,\n 2002\n\n GAO Report No. GAO-02-589, \xe2\x80\x9cCorps of Engineers Making Improvements, But\n Weaknesses Continue,\xe2\x80\x9d June 10, 2002\n\n GAO Report No. GAO/AMID-00-235, \xe2\x80\x9cComputer Control Weaknesses over the\n Corps of Engineers Financial Management System,\xe2\x80\x9d September 2000\n\n\nIG DoD\n IG DoD Report No. D-2003-043, \xe2\x80\x9cIndependent Auditor\xe2\x80\x99s Report on the U.S.\n Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, Fiscal Year 2002 Principal Financial\n Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d January 6, 2003\n\n IG DoD Report No. D-2001-067, \xe2\x80\x9cInspector General, DoD, Oversight of the\n Army Audit Agency Audit of the FY2000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil\n Works Program, Financial Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d February 28, 2001\n\n\nU.S. Army Audit Agency\n Audit Report No. AA 02-142, \xe2\x80\x9cFiscal Year 2001 Financial Statements, U.S.\n Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works,\xe2\x80\x9d February 8, 2002\n\n Audit Report No. AA-01-359, \xe2\x80\x9cAudit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FY 00\n Financial Statements, Civil Works (Property, Plant, and Equipment Valuation),\xe2\x80\x9d\n June 28, 2001\n\n Audit Report No. AA 01-319, \xe2\x80\x9cCorps of Engineers Financial Management\n System General and Application Controls,\xe2\x80\x9d June 26, 2001\n\n Audit Report No. AA 01-187, \xe2\x80\x9cFiscal Year 2000 Financial Statements, U.S.\n Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works,\xe2\x80\x9d February 14, 2001\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cAudit Report No. AA-00-186, \xe2\x80\x9cFY99 Financial Statements, U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Civil Works,\xe2\x80\x9d February 18, 2000\n\nAudit Report No. AA-99-157, \xe2\x80\x9cFY98 Financial Statements, U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Civil Works,\xe2\x80\x9d February 8, 1999\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cAppendix C. Glossary\nAccumulated Depreciation is the amount of depreciation expense that has been added\nover a period of time, calculated from the placed-in-service date of the asset.\n\nAcquisition Cost includes all amounts incurred to bring the asset to a form and location\nsuitable for its intended use. Some examples include: amounts paid to vendors,\ntransportation charges to the point of initial use, and handling and storage costs.\n\nBook Cost is synonymous with acquisition cost.\n\nComposite Depreciation is the term used to describe a method of depreciation for a\ngroup of assets, collectively referred to as a feature, and based upon their individual\nuseful life periods.\nFeature is a term used to describe a group of assets. Within the USACE context,\nindividual assets have been combined into a unit to facilitate accounting control.\n\nNet Book Value is the acquisition cost (book cost), less the accumulated depreciation\nand salvage value of the asset.\n\nOther Civil describes the category of assets that are neither hydropower related assets\nnor Revolving Fund related.\n\nPlaced-In-Service refers to the date that an asset is physically complete and available for\nuse. Assets are recognized when title passes to the acquiring entity or when the asset is\ndelivered to the entity or to an agent of the entity. It defines the start of the capitalization\nand depreciation expense process.\n\nRecovery Period is a term synonymous with useful life period.\nRemaining Service Life is the assigned service life of an asset less the number of\nmonths the asset has already been in service.\nStraight-Line is the depreciation method that allocates the acquisition cost of an asset,\nequally over the useful life period.\n\nUseful Life Period is the estimated time period for an asset to provide its intended\nservice. The concept recognizes the deterioration of items due to the aging process.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cAppendix D. Department of Defense Recovery\n Periods\n DoD RECOVERY PERIODS FOR DEPRECIABLE\n GENERAL PP&E ASSETS\n (Excludes National Defense PP&E and Heritage Assets)\n\n Description of General PP&E Assets Recovery Period\n\nGeneral Purpose Vehicles (Includes Heavy Duty Trucks and Buses); ADP\nSystems and Hardware (Computers and Peripherals); High Tech Medical\nEquipment; Equipment used in Research, Development, Test and\nEvaluation (RDT&E); Radio and Television Broadcasting Equipment; and 5 Years*\nSoftware\nImprovements to 5-Year Recovery Period Property (Personal Property)\nAll Other Equipment, Machinery and Software**\n 10 Years\nImprovements to 20-Year Recovery Period Property\n\nVessels, Tugs, Barges and Similar Water Transportation Equipment (Non-\nNational Defense PP&E vessels/ships)\nSteam (12.5K pounds per hour or more) and Electric Generation\nEquipment (500 Kilowatt or more), Sewers and Other Utilities (including 20 Years\nsuch things as fiber optic cable)\nFences, Roads, Bridges, Towers, Ship and Railroad Wharves and Docks,\nDry Docks, Fuel Storage Facilities and Other Real Property Structures.\nImprovements to 40-Year Recovery Period Property\n\nBuildings, Hangers, Warehouses, Fuel Storage Buildings, Air Traffic 40 Years\nControl Towers, and Other Real Property Buildings\n\nImprovements to Leased Buildings and Other Real Property (Leasehold Remainder of Lease\nImprovements) Period or 20 Years\n Whichever Is Less\n\nLand Rights of Limited Duration Over the Specified\n Duration\n\n* A recovery period of less than 5 years is permitted when the acquiring DoD Component is certain that\nthe\nuseful life of an asset is at least 2 years but less than 5 years. In such circumstances, the recovery period\nshall be the known useful life (2-4 years, as appropriate).\n** Depending on the nature of the software, it may be depreciated over a period of less than 5 years,\n5 years, or 10 years. The determining factor should be the actual estimated useful life of the software\nconsistent with that used for planning the software\xe2\x80\x99s acquisition.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cAppendix E. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\n\nDepartment of the Army\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\nCommander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nNaval Inspector General\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\nUnified Commands\nInspector General, U.S. Joint Forces Command\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organizations and Individuals\nOffice of Management and Budget\n\nCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee\n on Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member (cont\xe2\x80\x99d)\n\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International\n Relations, Committee on Government Reform\n\nHouse Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations,\n and the Census, Committee on Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c\x0cU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0c30\n\x0c31\n\x0cTeam Members\nThe Defense Financial Auditing Service Directorate, Office of the Deputy\nInspector General for Auditing of the Department of Defense prepared this report.\nPersonnel of the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nwho contributed to the report are listed below.\nPaul J. Granetto\nRichard B. Bird\nDavid F. Vincent\nBarbara A. Sauls\nHarold R. Tollefson\nKenneth R. Weron\nMarlon A. Moreira\nYalonda N. Blizzard\nLeon D. Bryant\nNathan R. Witter\n\x0c"


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.12.2008
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 339/111
 AFGØRELSE TRUFFET AF DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG
 Nr. 120/2008
 af 7. november 2008
 om ændring af bilag XV (Statsstøtte) til EØS-aftalen
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR —
 under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde som ændret ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt »aftalen«, særlig artikel 98, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Bilag XV til aftalen blev ændret ved afgørelse nr. 55/2007 truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg den 8. juni 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 800/2008 af 6. august 2008 om visse former for støttes forenelighed med fællesmarkedet i henhold til traktatens artikel 87 og 88 (Generel gruppefritagelsesforordning) (2) bør indarbejdes i aftalen.
 (3)
 Forordning (EF) nr. 800/2008 ophæver Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1628/2006 (3), som er indarbejdet i aftalen, og som derfor bør slettes af aftalen.
 (4)
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 68/2001 (4), (EF) nr. 70/2001 (5) og (EF) nr. 2204/2002 (6), der er indarbejdet i aftalen, er udløbet og bør derfor slettes af aftalen —
 TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:
 Artikel 1
 I bilag XV til aftalen foretages følgende ændringer:
 1)
 Teksten til punkt 1d (Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 68/2001), 1f (Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 70/2001), 1g (Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2204/2002) og 1i (Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1628/2006), herunder de relaterede overskrifter, udgår med virkning fra den 1. januar 2009.
 2)
 Følgende punkt indsættes efter punkt 1i (Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1628/2006):
 »Støtte til små og mellemstore virksomheder, forskning, udvikling, innovation, miljøbeskyttelse, regionale investeringer, kvindelige iværksættere, beskæftigelse og uddannelse
 1j.
 32008 R 0800: Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 800/2008 af 6. august 2008 om visse former for støttes forenelighed med fællesmarkedet i henhold til traktatens artikel 87 og 88 (Generel gruppefritagelsesforordning) (EUT L 214 af 9.8.2008, s. 3).
 Forordningens bestemmelser gælder i forbindelse med aftalen med følgende tilpasninger:
 a)
 Ordene »traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1,« erstattes med »EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1,«
 b)
 Ordene »traktatens artikel 87 og 88« erstattes med »EØS-aftalens artikel 61 og 62«
 c)
 Ordene »traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3,« erstattes med »EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 3,«
 d)
 Ordene »traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra a),« erstattes med »EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 3, litra a),«
 e)
 Ordene »traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c),« erstattes med »EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 3, litra c),«
 f)
 Hvad angår EFTA-staterne, erstattes teksten »traktatens artikel 88, stk. 3,« med »artikel 1, stk. 3, i del I i protokol 3 til aftalen om Tilsynsmyndigheden og Domstolen«
 g)
 Ordene »forenelig med fællesmarkedet« erstattes med »forenelig med EØS-aftalen«
 h)
 Ordet »Kommissionen« erstattes med »den kompetente tilsynsmyndighed, som defineret i artikel 62 i EØS-aftalen«
 i)
 Ordet »fællesskabsregistre« erstattes med »registre inden for det område, der er omfattet af EØS-aftalen«
 j)
 Ordene »Bilag I til traktaten« erstattes med »anført i tillægget til dette bilag og omfattet af EØS-aftalen«
 k)
 Ordet »fællesskabsfinansiering« erstattes med »fællesskabs- eller EØS-finansiering«
 l)
 Henvisninger til fællesskabslovgivning medfører ikke, at EFTA-staterne er forpligtet til at rette sig efter fællesskabslovgivningen, når lovgivningen ikke er indarbejdet i EØS-aftalen.«
 3)
 I overskriften til tillægget erstattes ordene »1f(g)« med »1j(j)«.
 Artikel 2
 Den islandske og den norske udgave af forordning (EF) nr. 800/2008, der offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-tillæg, er autentiske.
 Artikel 3
 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 8. november 2008, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-udvalg har modtaget alle meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1 (7).
 Artikel 4
 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-afsnit og EØS-tillæg.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 7. november 2008.
 På vegne af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg
 S.D. Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 266 af 11.10.2007, s. 15.
 (2) EUT L 214 af 9.8.2008, s. 3.
 (3) EUT L 302 af 1.11.2006, s. 29.
 (4) EFT L 10 af 13.1.2001, s. 20.
 (5) EFT L 10 af 13.1.2001, s. 33.
 (6) EFT L 337 af 13.12.2002, s. 3.
 (7) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.


type: wikipedia

text:
La statistica non parametrica è una parte della statistica in cui si assume che i modelli matematici non necessitano di ipotesi a priori sulle caratteristiche della popolazione (ovvero, di un parametro), o comunque le ipotesi sono meno restrittive di quelle usate nella statistica parametrica.
 In particolare non si assume l'ipotesi che i dati provengano da una popolazione normale o gaussiana.
 Viene considerata da alcuni la statistica dei piccoli campioni, in quanto è soprattutto in questi casi che l'ipotesi di distribuzione gaussiana è fatta spesso in modo arbitrario.
 Ma questa definizione può essere fuorviante, in quanto la statistica non parametrica viene applicata anche in presenza di campioni relativamente grandi.
 Effettivamente, in presenza di grandi campioni, diverse distribuzioni tendono alla variabile casuale gaussiana, permettendo così di passare alla statistica parametrica.
 Voci correlate
 Statistica parametrica
 Parametro (statistica)
 Test non parametrico
 Test di verifica d'ipotesi
 Sidney Siegel
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Inferenza statistica
 Psicometria


type: legislation

text:
 19.9.2015
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 244/47
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2015/1561
 z dne 18. septembra 2015
 o določitvi količin, ki se bodo dodale količini, določeni za podobdobje od 1. januarja do 31. marca 2016 v okviru tarifne kvote, odprte z Uredbo (ES) št. 536/2007 za perutninsko meso s poreklom iz Združenih držav Amerike
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve trgov kmetijskih proizvodov in razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 922/72, (EGS) št. 234/79, (ES) št. 1037/2001 in (ES) št. 1234/2007 (1) ter zlasti člena 188(2) in (3) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 536/2007 (2) je odprla letno tarifno kvoto za uvoz proizvodov iz sektorja za perutninsko meso s poreklom iz Združenih držav Amerike.
 (2)
 Količine v zahtevkih za uvozna dovoljenja, vloženih od 1. do 7. septembra 2015 za podobdobje od 1. oktobra do 31. decembra 2015, so nižje od razpoložljivih količin. Zato bi bilo treba določiti količine, za katere zahtevki niso bili vloženi, in jih dodati količini, določeni za naslednje kvotno podobdobje.
 (3)
 Da bi zagotovili učinkovitost ukrepa, bi morala ta uredba začeti veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Količine, za katere zahtevki za uvozna dovoljenja niso bili vloženi v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 536/2007 in ki jih je treba dodati količinam za podobdobje od od 1. januarja do 31. marca 2016, so navedene v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 18. septembra 2015
 Za Komisijo
 V imenu predsednika
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Generalni direktor za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja
 (1) UL L 347, 20.12.2013, str. 671.
 (2) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 536/2007 z dne 15. maja 2007 o odprtju in upravljanju tarifne kvote za perutninsko meso, dodeljene Združenim državam Amerike (UL L 128, 16.5.2007, str. 6).
 PRILOGA
 Zaporedna št.
 Količine, za katere niso bili vloženi zahtevki in ki jih je treba dodati razpoložljivim količinam za podobdobje od 1. januarja do 31. marca 2016
 (v kg)
 09.4169
 10 672 500


text:
Diese Übersicht stellt die Familie des Komponisten und Dramatikers Richard Wagner dar.
 Stammliste
 Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wagner (1770–1813), Polizeiaktuar⚭ 1798 Johanna Rosine Pätz (1774–1848) (die Witwe heiratete 1814 in zweiter Ehe den Maler Ludwig Geyer (1779–1821), dessen angebliche Vaterschaft Richard Wagners weder belegt noch widerlegt ist).
 Albert Wagner (1799–1874), Opernsänger und Regisseur,⚭ 1828 Elise Gollmann, (1800–1864)
 Franziska Wagner (1829–1895)⚭ 1854 Alexander Ritter (1833–1896), Musiker und Komponist
 Marie Wagner (1831–1876)⚭ 1851 Karl Jacoby, Kaufmann
 Johanna Wagner (adoptiert) (1828–1894), Tochter von Eduard Freiherr Bock von Wülfingen, Opernsängerin und Schauspielerin⚭ 1859 Alfred Jachmann, (1829–1918), Landrat
 Carl Gustav Wagner (1801–1802)
 Rosalie Wagner (1803–1837), Schauspielerin,⚭ 1836 Oswald Marbach, (1810–1890), Universitätsprofessor
 Carl Julius Wagner (1804–1862)
 Luise Wagner (1805–1872), Schauspielerin⚭ 1828 Friedrich Brockhaus, (1800–1865), Verlagsbuchhändler
 Klara Wagner (1807–1875), Opernsängerin⚭ 1829 Heinrich Wolfram, (1800–1874), Opernsänger, später Kaufmann
 Maria Theresia Wagner (1809–1814)
 Ottilie Wagner (1811–1883)⚭ 1836 Hermann Brockhaus, (1806–1877)
 Richard Wagner (1813–1883), Komponist, Dramatiker, Dirigent und Regisseur,⚭ 1. 1836 Minna Planer (1809–1866), Schauspielerin⚭ 2. 1870 Cosima Liszt (1837–1930), Tochter von Franz Liszt und Marie d’Agoult, geschieden 1869 vom Dirigenten Hans von Bülow, Mutter der drei Kinder (nach den beiden Töchtern Daniela und Blandine mit Bülow):
 Isolde Ludowitz von Bülow (1865–1919)⚭ 1900 Franz Beidler, (1872–1930), Dirigent
 Franz Wilhelm Beidler (1901–1981) Jurist und Musikwissenschaftler,⚭ Ellen Annemarie Gottschalk, (1903–1945)
 Dagny Ricarda Beidler * 1942
 Eva von Bülow (1867–1942)⚭ 1908 Houston Stewart Chamberlain, (1855–1927), Publizist
 Siegfried Wagner (1869–1930), Komponist, Dramatiker, Dirigent und Regisseur,⚭ 1915 Winifred Marjorie Williams, (1897–1980), Adoptivtochter des Pianisten Karl Klindworth
 Wieland Wagner (1917–1966), Regisseur und Bühnenbildner⚭ 1941 Gertrud Reissinger (1916–1998), Tänzerin und Choreographin
 Iris Wagner (1942–2014)
 Wolf Siegfried Wagner, * 1943, Bühnenbildner und Architekt
 ⚭ Malo Osthoff
 Joy Olivia Wagner, * 1970
 ⚭ Eleonore Gräfin Lehndorff
 Nike Wagner, * 1945, Dramaturgin und Publizistin
 ⚭ Jean Launay
 Louise Wagner, * 1981, Tänzerin, Choreografin und Bühnenbildnerin
 Balthasar, * 2014/15
 ⚭ Jürg Stenzl * 1942, Musikwissenschaftler
 Daphne Wagner * 1946, Schauspielerin⚭ 1. Udo Proksch, (1934–2001)⚭ 2. Tilman Spengler, * 1947
 Friedelind Wagner, (1918–1991)
 Wolfgang Wagner (1919–2010), Opernregisseur und Bühnenbildner
 ⚭ 1943 Ellen Drexel (1919–2002), geschieden 1976;
 Eva Wagner-Pasquier, * 1945, Theater-Managerin,⚭ Yves Pasquier, Filmproduzent
 Antoine Amadeus Pasquier, * 1982
 Gottfried Wagner * 1947, Musikwissenschaftler und Publizist,⚭ 1. Beatrix Kraus⚭ 2. Teresina Rosetti
 Eugenio Wagner, * 1987
 ⚭ 1976 Gudrun Mack-Armann (1944–2007)
 Katharina Wagner, * 1978, Regisseurin
 Verena Wagner (1920–2019)⚭ 1943 Bodo Lafferentz, (1897–1975), NS-Funktionär
 Améli Lafferentz, * 1944,⚭ Manfred Hohmann
 Christopher Hohmann (1984–1998)
 Manfred Lafferentz, * 1945⚭ Gunhild Mix
 Leif Henning Lafferentz, * 1979
 Winifred Lafferentz, * 1947,⚭ Paul Arminjon
 Wendy Arminjon, * 1973
 Mathias Arminjon, * 1981
 Wieland Lafferentz, * 1949,⚭ Isabella Weiß
 Verena Maja Lafferentz, * 1981, Jazz-Sängerin
 Verena Lafferentz, * 1952,⚭ Tilo Schnekenburger
 Literatur
 Wolf Siegfried Wagner (Hrsg.): Die Geschichte unserer Familie in Bildern. Bayreuth 1876–1976. Rogner und Bernhard, München 1976, ISBN 3-8077-0055-2.
 Brigitte Hamann: Die Familie Wagner. Rowohlt, Reinbek 2005, ISBN 3-499-50658-0.
 Oliver Hilmes: Cosimas Kinder. Triumph und Tragödie der Wagner-Dynastie. Siedler, München 2009, ISBN 978-3-88680-899-1.
 Jonathan Carr: Der Wagner-Clan. Biografie einer deutschen Familie. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2010, ISBN 978-3-596-18504-7.
 Sabine Zurmühl: Cosima Wagner. Ein widersprüchliches Leben. Böhlau, Wien 2022, ISBN 978-3-205-21501-1.
 Eva Rieger: Friedelind Wagner. Die rebellische Enkelin Richard Wagners. Piper, München/Zürich 2012, ISBN 978-3-492-95868-4.
 Eva Rieger: Isolde. Richard Wagners Tochter. Eine unversöhnliche Familiengeschichte. Insel, Berlin 2022, ISBN 978-3-458-64292-3.
 Film
 Leuchtende Liebe – lachender Tod – Das Familientheater der Wagners. Dokumentarfilm, 2005, 59 Min., Regie: Oliver Becker, Produktion: Neue Mira Filmproduktion, Erstsendung: ARTE, 6. August 2005, Inhaltsangabe
 Der Wagner-Clan. Eine Familiengeschichte. Fernsehfilm, 2013, 108 Min., Produzenten: Oliver Berben und Gero von Boehm, Regie: Christiane Balthasar
 Der Clan – Die Dokumentation. Dokumentarfilm zum Fernsehfilm, 2014, 43 Min., von Gero und Felix von Boehm
 Weblinks
 (PDF; 21 kB)
 Stammbaum (englisch)
 Einzelnachweise
 Wagner
 Wagner
 Richard Wagner
 Wagner


type: caselaw

text:
 22.8.2016
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 305/31
 Presuda Općeg suda od 5. srpnja 2016. – Bundesverband Souvenir – Geschenke – Ehrenpreise protiv EUIPO-a – Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)
 (Predmet T-167/15) (1)
 ((„Žig Europske unije - Postupak za proglašavanje žiga ništavim - Verbalni žig Europske unije NEUSCHWANSTEIN - Apsolutni razlozi za odbijanje - Članak 7. stavak 1. točke (b) i (c) Uredbe (EZ) br. 207/2009 - Nepostojanje opisnog karaktera - Razlikovni karakter - Članak 52. stavak 1. točka (b) Uredbe br. 207/2009 - Nepostojanje zle vjere”))
 (2016/C 305/43)
 Jezik postupka: njemački
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Bundesverband Souvenir – Geschenke – Ehrenpreise eV (Veitsbronn, Njemačka) (zastupnik: B. Bittner, odvjetnik)
 Tuženik: Ured Europske unije za intelektualno vlasništvo (zastupnik: A. Schifko, agent)
 Druga stranka u postupku pred žalbenim vijećem EUIPO-a, intervenijent u postupku pred Općim sudom: Freistaat Bayern (Njemačka) (zastupnik: M. Müller, odvjetnik)
 Predmet
 Tužba protiv odluke petog žalbenog vijeća EUIPO-a od 22. siječnja 2015. (predmet R 28/2014-5) koja se odnosi na postupak za proglašavanje žiga ništavim između Bundesverband Souvenir – Geschenke – Ehrenpreise i Freistaat Bayern.
 Izreka
 1.
 Tužba se odbija.
 2.
 Društvu Bundesverband Souvenir – Geschenke – Ehrenpreise eV nalaže se snošenje troškova.
 (1) SL C 178, 1. 6. 2015.