.  . . . . . . . .Both J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford are very effective in delivering their proposal to record the pollution allowances as an asset in the company’s balance sheet. The inclusion of data gives credence to the presentation and the inclusion of their research on the functions of the FERC and EPA organizations. J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford focus on several issues pertaining to pollution allowances. J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford clearly emphasized that the EPA allows companies to emit sulfur dioxide (SO2) on a limited basis. Next, J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford showed the reasons why the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions recommends the recording of the pollution allowances on the cost basis. The commission recommends that the cost is needed as a basis for determining how much of the pollution allowances can be sold and the pollution emission limits.
Next, J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford reiterated that the EPA recommends that the pollution allowances should not be recorded in the balance sheet of the receiving company. The basic reason here is that the companies did not pay a single pound for the pollution allowances received from the EPA. Next, J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford also recommended that the pollution allowances should be classified as donated assets. The article vividly shows that the companies must not exceed their maximum limit. The article can easily convince readers to accept their ideas on pollution allowances.
Next, J. R. Wambsganss and B Sanford recommended that the pollution allowances must be recorded as assets in the balance sheet. The authors’ recommendation is based on the basic definition of assets. According to the International Accounting Standards, assets are resources that can be controlled by the company as a result of past events. selling, buying and donating. According to both authors, the pollution allowances snugly fit the description of marketable security. . .