Message-ID: <21153659.1075843191451.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT) From: jeff.dasovich@enron.com To: kkupiecki@arpartners.com Subject: Re: Q2 for Patten Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Jeff Dasovich X-To: Kimberly Kupiecki @ ENRON X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Jeff_Dasovich_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: DASOVICH-J X-FileName: jdasovic.nsf Hey, nice spreadsheet. Two minor questions: 1) Isn't the provision for taxes on the income statement actually the taxes on the 'income' they made from using the sales method (equal to 46%), rather than what they pay will actually pay the IRS under the installment method? I think the notes show how instead of paying the 4.1$ based on their recognized income, they pay some itty bitty amount based on installment. If so, I think they actually get a 46% tax break on the 1 million and change that they lose using a cash basis. Still a loss, just not so big. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm thinking straight on this, but that's how I read the numbers. 2) Does the balance sheet have to change a little? For example, does shareholder equity change since the income that goes to retained earnings is now a loss, rather than a gain? Also, if revenue is recognized on a cash basis and is now much smaller, there needs to be another liability to equal out the decrease in revenues with the still large notes receivables on the asset side (as you note in the answer the notes recievables stays the same). Seems like they might need a liability like "deferred profits" or some such thing, such that the ["deferred profits" + revenues (recognized on cash basis)] = notes receivables. Anyway, I may not have this right, but thought I'd bring it up to see what you think. Best, Jeff