1.Defend the position of no allocation of income taxes: There are many valid arguments for firms that might wish to completely eliminate the allocation of income in the period in which it is earned. Many believe it is complex, costly, irrelevant, and inconsistent with the conceptual framework (Chaney & Jeter, 1989, p. 7). And for many firms that practice efficient methods of reducing income taxes, such as growing investments in fixed assets, large portions of the fixed asset liabilities will never result in cash outflows (Wong, Wong, & Naiker, 2011, p. 1088). Furthermore, future cash flows are normally reduced to their present value, but both comprehensive and partial allocation of income taxes do not use present values (Chaney & Jeter, 1989, p. 6). Despite these concerns and objections, it cannot be denied that expecting future payments to be avoided would be against conservatism. 1.Defend the position of partial allocation of income taxes: Another argument against allocation of income tax is that all timing differences do not reverse and their tax effect does not result in a payment of the deferred tax liability (Wong, Wong, & Naiker, 2011, p. 1088). For advocates of partial allocation of income tax, these types of deferred tax liabilities would be ignored and only the portion of comprehensive tax liability that was expected to result in cash outflows would be recognized. Again, this is not a conservative approach because firm management is given leeway in choosing which liabilities to avoid and which to recognize. 1.Defend the position of comprehensive allocation of income taxes: The comprehensive allocation method requires that the income tax expense reported in an accounting period be affected by all transactions and events entering in to the determination of pretax financial accounting income for that period (Schroeder & Clark, 2011, p. 402). Both IFRS and U.S. GAAP require the comprehensive allocation approach for recognition of income taxes. The matching argument, where the income tax expense is matched against revenues, is used to justify comprehensive allocation on the grounds that this principle requires a complete matching of expenses and revenues (Wong, Wong, & Naiker, 2011, p. 1087). It is also the most conservative approach. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:11 (KJV), For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Paul hit upon a timeless truth here; we cannot ever truly know the thoughts and motivations of another person. For this reason, investors would be left guessing at managements interpretations under either the partial or non-allocation of income taxes. *****I need a reply to this discussion board post