Individual and Composite Depreciation
Again, depreciation is classed as “individual or unit” and “composite.” Unit depreciation is the amount of the decrease in value of the individual parts which compose the whole of a property; composite depreciation is the amount of the decrease in value of the plant or property as a whole. Its amount in dollars is the sum of all unit depreciations similarly expressed. Expressed as a percentage it represents the effect of all unit depreciations weighted by the ratio of the value of each to the whole. Thus a plant as a whole may be depreciated 20%, but the numerous units of that plant may have a range of depreciation of from 0% to 100%. Some items may be ready to be discarded and others will probably have just been newly installed.
In connection with composite depreciation the term “normal” or “average” value is used. The normal value of a plant is the average value at which it must be maintained to give efficient service. Any drop below that point results in increased cost per unit of service rendered, and is consequently evidence of poor management. Normal value may sometimes be expressed in percentage as the difference between 100%, original cost, and composite depreciation. In the case cited above, where composite depreciation is 20% the normal value would be 80%, under a proper policy of management.
Physical and Functional Depreciation
Finally depreciation is classed as “physical” and “functional,” definition of which are deferred for treatment in [Chapter VII], “Depreciation—Its Causes.”
Deferred Maintenance and Accrued Depreciation
Other terms needing definition are: “deferred maintenance” and “accrued depreciation.” The former refers to repairs which at any given time are needed for the proper up-keep but which for one reason or another have not yet been made. So long as an asset is giving reasonably satisfactory service, repairs are usually deferred to a convenient time—such as when work is slack, or until similar repairs may have accrued elsewhere, or until weather conditions have changed, or in general until the repairs can be most economically done. Similarly, accrued depreciation refers to the depreciation which has taken place between the last time an item was brought on the books and the present time. The inevitable forces causing depreciation are constantly at work bringing about the decretion of the asset day by day, but it is impracticable to reflect such condition daily. Only at the close of each fiscal period is it deemed necessary to adjust the books so that they reflect the depreciation which has taken place during the period just closed.
Attitude of the Law
Before studying the factors of depreciation it is interesting to note the attitude of the courts towards depreciation. Accountants and engineers recognized the necessity of taking account of depreciation considerably in advance of its recognition by the courts of this country. H. R. Hatfield[18] says: “France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Austria all prescribe in their statutes that depreciation must be reckoned before showing profits.” The French Joint-Stock Company Law specifically requires the reservation of some portion of the company’s surplus for taking care of the depreciation of the assets. While the method may not be scientific, the principle involved is recognized as correct. But in an early English case, Lee v. Neuchatel Company, it was held, in the case of a company operating inherently wasting assets “that even depreciation by waste is not necessarily a revenue charge.”
Early decisions in this country likewise fail to sustain the propriety of depreciation charges. The cases usually cited are The Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 99 U. S. 402, and United States v. Kansas Pacific Ry. Co., 99 U. S. 455 (1878), the first not passing specifically on the question of depreciation but showing a lack of appreciation of the distinction between capital and revenue charges, and the latter stating that “only such expenditures as are actually made can with any propriety be claimed as a deduction from earnings.” The Supreme Court of California in San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556 (1897), and in Redlands, etc., Water Co. v. Redlands, 212 Cal. 312 (1898), refused all allowances for depreciation except necessary amounts for “maintenance and repairs during the year.” However, in Pioneer Tele, and Tele. Co. v. Westenhaver, 118 Pac. 354, the language of the court is not uncertain: “A sufficient sum should be allowed from the earnings of a utility to make good the depreciation of the plant and replace the deteriorated portions thereof, when they become so impaired that they can no longer be made useful by repair.”