Intermediate Accounting Vol 2 Canadian 3rd

Edition Lo Test Bank pdf download

https://testbankfan.com/product/intermediate-accounting-
vol-2-canadian-3rd-edition-lo-test-bank/
We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com
to discover even more!

Intermediate Accounting Vol 2 Canadian 3rd Edition Lo

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/intermediate-accounting-
vol-2-canadian-3rd-edition-lo-solutions-manual/

Intermediate Accounting Vol 2 Canadian 2nd Edition Lo

Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/intermediate-accounting-
vol-2-canadian-2nd-edition-lo-test-bank/

Intermediate Accounting Vol 2 Canadian 2nd Edition Lo

Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/intermediate-accounting-
vol-2-canadian-2nd-edition-lo-solutions-manual/

Macroeconomics Canadian 13th Edition Ragan Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/macroeconomics-canadian-13th-
edition-ragan-test-bank/
Classical Sociological Theory 7th Edition Ritzer Test
Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/classical-sociological-
theory-7th-edition-ritzer-test-bank/

Intermediate Accounting 2nd Edition Gordon Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/intermediate-accounting-2nd-
edition-gordon-solutions-manual/

Introduction to Criminal Justice A Balanced Approach

1st Edition Payne Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-criminal-justice-
a-balanced-approach-1st-edition-payne-test-bank/

MGMT Asia Pacific 3rd Edition Williams Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/mgmt-asia-pacific-3rd-edition-
williams-solutions-manual/

Essentials Of Electrical And Computer Engineering 1st

Edition Kerns Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-electrical-and-
computer-engineering-1st-edition-kerns-solutions-manual/
Business Law Today Comprehensive 11th Edition Miller
Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/business-law-today-
comprehensive-11th-edition-miller-test-bank/
Intermediate Accounting, Vol. 2, 3e (Lo/Fisher)
Chapter 16 Accounting for Income Taxes

16.1 Learning Objective 1

1) Which statement is correct?

A) Financial reporting rules are generally consistent with tax reporting rules.
B) Tax rules are generally consistent the principles used in accrual accounting.
C) Tax rules generally require a higher degree of reliability than financial reporting.
D) Accounting income is generally similar to taxable income.
Answer: C
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

2) Which statement is correct?

A) IFRS allows the taxes payable method because it is consistent with accrual accounting generally and
with the IFRS Conceptual Framework.
B) The taxes payable method is similar to accrual basis accounting and reflects the effect of transactions
when they occur.
C) ASPE permits the taxes payable approach because of the different costs and benefits faced by private
enterprises.
D) ) Recording the effect of deferred taxes is inconsistent with the definition and recognition criteria for
assets and liabilities.
Answer: C
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

3) Which statement is correct about the "taxes payable method"?

A) It is the accounting method used under both ASPE and IFRS.
B) It records an amount for income tax equal to the tax payments required.
C) It matches income with the associated income tax expense.
D) It records an amount for income tax equal to the net income before tax.
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

1
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
4) Which statement is accurate?
A) The taxes payable method is also known as the "deferral method."
B) The deferral method and the accrual method are "tax allocation" approaches.
C) The income statement approach is also known as the "accrual method."
D) The balance sheet approach is also known as the "deferral method."
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

5) How much tax would be reported under the taxes payable method for FY2017?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) 23,750
B) 25,500
C) 27,500
D) 36,000
Answer: A
Explanation: A) 25% × 95,000 = 23,750
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

6) Which accurately describes the purpose of the taxes payable method?

A) It represents the amount of income recognized for accounting purposes.
B) It represents the amount of income recognized for tax purposes.
C) It calculates tax expense based on the accounting income before tax.
D) It calculates tax expense based on the amount payable to tax authorities.
Answer: D
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

7) What is one reason to use the taxes payable method?

A) It is a complicated method, but results in the least tax expense.
B) A company only pays tax once a year under this method.
C) It results in the best matching for the balance sheet.
D) It is the least costly method for tax accounting.
Answer: D
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

2
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
8) How much tax would be reported under the taxes payable method for F2018?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) 25,500
B) 31,500
C) 33,750
D) 36,000
Answer: B
Explanation: B) 30% × 105,000 = 31,500
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

9) Which statement is accurate?

A) Accounting income is generally higher than taxable income.
B) Accounting income is determined by financial reporting.
C) The balance sheet is unaffected by the tax accounting method.
D) The taxes payable method is a "tax allocation" approach.
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

10) Which statement best describes the "deferral method"?

A) This method focuses on the balance sheet.
B) This method is an example of a "tax allocation" approach.
C) This is the same as the "accrual method" of tax accounting.
D) This method is used by companies reporting using IFRS.
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

3
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
11) Which method does not use "temporary differences" to account for income tax expense?
A) The taxes payable method.
B) The deferral method.
C) The accrual method.
D) The tax allocation method.
Answer: A
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

12) Which statement is not correct?

A) The accrual method focuses on the balance sheet.
B) The deferral method focuses on the income statement.
C) The deferral method matches tax expense to the balance sheet.
D) The accrual and deferral methods are both tax allocation methods.
Answer: C
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

13) Which method reflects the tax effect in the period that tax is payable?
A) Accrual method.
B) Taxes payable method.
C) Deferral method.
D) Tax allocation method.
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

4
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
14) What is the tax expense under the deferral method for FY2016?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) $25,500
B) $30,000
C) $30,750
D) $36,000
Answer: D
Explanation: D) 120,000 × 30% = 36,000
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

15) What is the tax expense under the deferral method for FY2017?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) $23,750
B) $25,500
C) $27,500
D) $36,000
Answer: C
Explanation: C) 110,000 × 25% = 27,500
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

5
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
16) What is the tax expense under the deferral method for FY2018?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 150,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 35%

A) $27,500
B) $36,000
C) $36,750
D) $52,500
Answer: D
Explanation: D) 150,000 × 35% = 52,500
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

17) What is the income tax payable under the deferral method for FY2016?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) $25,500
B) $30,000
C) $30,750
D) $36,000
Answer: A
Explanation: A) 85,000 × 30% = 25,500
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

6
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
18) What is the income tax payable under the deferral method for FY2017?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) $23,750
B) $25,500
C) $27,500
D) $36,000
Answer: A
Explanation: A) 95,000 × 25% = 23,750
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

19) What is the income tax payable under the deferral method for FY2018?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 150,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 35%

A) $27,500
B) $36,000
C) $36,750
D) $52,500
Answer: C
Explanation: C) 105,000 × 35% = 36,750
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

7
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
20) What is the deferred tax liability under the deferral method for FY2016?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) $10,500
B) $25,500
C) $30,750
D) $36,000
Answer: A
Explanation: A)
Deferred tax liability =
(120,000 × 30% = 36,000
- (85,000 × 30% = 25,500)
10,500
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

21) What is the deferred tax liability under the deferral method for FY2017?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 120,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 30%

A) $3,750
B) $23,750
C) $27,500
D) $36,000
Answer: A
Explanation: A) Deferred tax liability =
(110,000 × 25% = 27,500)
- (95,000 × 25% = 23,750)
3,750
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

8
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
22) What is the deferred tax liability under the deferral method for FY2018?

FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

Income before tax 120,000 110,000 150,000
Taxable income 85,000 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 25% 35%

A) $52,500
B) $36,750
C) $27,500
D) $15,750
Answer: D
Explanation: D) Deferred tax liability =
(150,000 × 35% = 52,500)
(105,000 × 35% = 36,750)
15,750
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

23) Which statement is correct?

A) The deferral and accrual methods produce the same tax expense when tax rates are constant.
B) The deferral method applies new tax rates to accumulated tax balances.
C) The accrual method applies new tax rates to only to current year's income.
D) The deferral and accrual methods produce the same tax expense when tax rates are falling.
Answer: A
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

9
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
24) Under the accrual method, what is the current year temporary difference in FY2017?

FY2016 FY2017
Deferred tax liability 30,000
Income before tax 130,000
Taxable income 95,000
Tax rate 30% 35%

A) 30,000
B) 47,250
C) 35,000
D) 12,250
Answer: C
Explanation: C) (130,000 - $95,000) = 35,000
Diff: 3 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

25) Under the accrual method, what is the current year temporary difference in FY2016?

FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Deferred tax liability 27,000
Income before tax 100,000 150,000
Taxable income 95,000 105,000
Tax rate 30% 35% 35%

A) 4,500
B) 30,500
C) 5,000
D) 39,500
Answer: C
Explanation: C) 100,000 - $95,000 = $5,000
Diff: 3 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

10
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
26) Under the accrual method, what is the FY2017 tax expense before making any adjustments for
deferred tax liabilities?

FY2016 FY2017
Deferred tax liability 27,500
Income before tax 150,000
Taxable income 105,000
Tax rate 25% 35%

A) 11,000
B) 42,500
C) 52,500
D) 63,500
Answer: C
Explanation: C) (150,000 × 35%) = 52,500
Diff: 3 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

27) A company earned $860,000 in pre-tax income, while its tax return showed taxable income of
$560,000. At a tax rate of 40%, how much is the income tax expense under the taxes payable method
permitted under ASPE?
A) $224,000
B) $344,000
C) $120,000
D) $196,000
Answer: A
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

28) GMS Corp. reported $680,000 in income tax expense for the year under the accrual method. Its
balance sheet reported an overall increase in deferred income tax liability of $40,000 and a decrease in
income tax payable of $50,000. How much would GMS report as income tax expense had it used the taxes
payable method?
A) $680,000
B) $630,000
C) $720,000
D) $640,000
Answer: D
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

11
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
29) What is the accepted method of accounting for taxes under IFRS and ASPE? Accrual method or taxes
payable method?
Answer: Currently, the accrual method is the accepted approach in both IFRS and ASPE. The taxes
payable method is an accepted alternative to the accrual method under ASPE.
Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

30) Why is the taxes payable method not an accepted approach under IFRS? What difference explains
why ASPE permits this approach in addition to the accrual approach?
Answer: IFRS does not allow the taxes payable method because it is neither consistent with accrual
accounting generally nor with the IFRS Conceptual Framework. The taxes payable method is similar to
cash basis accounting and does not reflect the effect of transactions when they occur. Not recording the
effect of deferred taxes is inconsistent with the definition and recognition criteria for assets and liabilities.
ASPE permits the taxes payable approach because of the different costs and benefits faced by private
enterprises. This method is less costly, and the limited user base, being primarily owners and lenders, are
more concerned about cash flows and can obtain information about deferred taxes should they need it.
Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

31) Compare and contrast the two tax allocation methods.

Answer: The two tax allocation methods are the deferral method and the accrual method. They are
considered tax allocation methods because they allocate the tax effects to periods in which the enterprise
recognizes the related financial reporting amounts (in contrast to the taxes payable method, which simply
records the tax effect in the period the tax is payable). Both of these methods help account for temporary
differences between accounting income and taxable income. The deferral method focuses on obtaining
the income statement value for income tax expense that best matches the amount of income recognized
for the year. In contrast, the accrual method focuses on obtaining the balance sheet value for the income
tax liability (or asset) that best reflects the assets and liabilities recognized on the balance sheet.
Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

32) A company earns $390,000 in pre-tax income, while its tax return shows taxable income of $280,000.
At a tax rate of 35%, how much is the income tax expense under the taxes payable method permitted
under ASPE?
Answer: Taxable income $280,000
Tax rate × 35%
Income tax payable; income tax expense $98,000
Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

12
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
33) A company earns $490,000 in pre-tax income, while its tax return shows taxable income of $380,000.
At a tax rate of 35%, how much is the income tax expense under the taxes payable method permitted
under ASPE?
Answer: Taxable income $380,000
Tax rate × 35%
Income tax payable; income tax expense $133,000
Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

34) A company facing a 45% tax rate has calculated its taxable income for the year to be $2,100,000. It
made installment payments during the year totalling $955,000; this amount has been recorded in an asset
account as "income tax installments"

Required:
Prepare the journal entry to record the adjusting entry for income taxes at the end of the year under the
taxes payable method.
Answer: Taxable income $2,100,000
Tax rate × 45%
Income tax payable $ 945,000
Installments paid 955,000
Tax due (receivable) $(10,000)

Dr. Income tax expense 945,000

Dr. Income tax receivable 10,000
Cr. Income tax installments 955,000
Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

35) SEG Company reported $490,000 in income tax expense for the year under the accrual method. Its
balance sheet reported an overall increase in deferred income tax liability of $20,000 and a decrease in
income tax payable of $25,000. How much would SEG report as income tax expense had it used the taxes
payable method?
Answer: Income tax expense under accrual method $490,000
Less: increase in deferred tax liability (20,000)
Income taxes paid during year
= income tax expense under taxes payable method $470,000

Note that the change in the tax payable account does not factor into the difference in the income tax
expense amounts between the two methods.
Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

13
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
36) Withering Inc. began operations in 2015. Due to the untimely death of its founder, Edwin Delaney, the
company was wound up in 2017. The following table provides information on Withering's income over
the three years.

2015 2016 2017

Income before tax 5,000 95,000 87,000
Taxable income nil 90,000 97,000

The statutory income tax rate remained at 45% throughout the three years.

Required:
a. For each year and for the three years combined, compute the following:
- income tax expense under the taxes payable method;
- the effective tax rate (= tax expense / pre-tax income) under the taxes payable method;
- income tax expense under the accrual method;
- effective tax rate under the accrual method.
b. Briefly comment on any differences between the effective tax rates and the statutory rate of 45%.
Answer:
a. Computations:

Taxes payable method 2015 2016 2017 Total

Taxable income (given) (A) nil $90,000 $97,000 $187,000
Statutory tax rate (given) (B) 45% 45% 45% 45%
Income tax expense (C = A × B) $0 $40,500 $43,650 $ 84,150
Income before tax (given) (D) $5,000 $95,000 $87,000 $187,000
Effective tax rate (E = C / D) 0% 42.6% 50.2% 45%
Accrual method
Income before tax (given) (F) $5,000 $95,000 $87,000 $187,000
Statutory tax rate (given) (G) 45% 45% 45% 45%
Income tax expense (H) $2,250 $42,750 $39,150 $ 84,150
Income before tax (given) (F) $5,000 $95,000 $87,000 $187,000
Effective tax rate (H / F) 45% 45% 45% 45%

b. The taxes payable method produces an erratic pattern of effective tax rates that significantly deviate
from the statutory tax rate of 45%. However, total tax expense over the three years of $84,150 equals 45%
of total taxable income. In contrast, the accrual method produces effective tax rates that are consistently
equal to the statutory tax rate of 45%.
Diff: 2 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.1 Describe the conceptual differences among the three methods of accounting for income taxes and
apply the taxes payable method under ASPE.

14
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
16.2 Learning Objective 2

1) Which of the following is an example of a "permanent difference"?

A) Warranty provisions.
B) Dividends received by corporations.
C) Depreciation on capital assets.
D) Completed contract method.
Answer: B
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

2) Which of the following is true?

A) A deductible temporary difference is a temporary difference that results in future taxable income being
more than accounting income.
B) A Deferred Tax Liability is the amount of income tax payable in future deferred tax liability periods as
a result of taxable permanent differences.
C) A Taxable Temporary Difference is a temporary difference that results in future taxable income being
less than accounting income.
D) A deferred tax asset is the amount of income tax recoverable in future periods as a result of deductible
temporary differences, losses carried forward, or tax credits carried forward.
Answer: D
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

3) What is a "taxable" temporary difference?

A) Results in future taxable income being higher than accounting income.
B) Results in future taxable income being less than accounting income.
C) The amount of income tax payable in the current and future periods.
D) Result of an event affecting accounting and taxable income in different periods.
Answer: A
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

15
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
4) What is a deferred tax asset?
A) A deductible temporary difference that results in future taxable income being less than accounting
income.
B) The amount of income tax recoverable in future periods as a result of deductible temporary
differences, losses carried forward, or tax credits carried forward.
C) A deductible temporary difference that results in future taxable income being higher than accounting
income.
D) The amount of income tax payable in future periods as a result of taxable temporary differences.
Answer: B
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

5) Which statement is correct?

A) A deductible temporary difference results in future taxable income being higher than accounting
income.
B) A deductible temporary difference results in future taxable income being less than accounting income.
C) A deductible temporary difference refers to the amount of income tax payable in the current year.
D) A deductible temporary difference results from an event affecting accounting and taxable income in
the same periods.
Answer: B
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

6) What is an "originating difference"?

A) The net carrying amount of a capital asset or capital asset class for tax purposes in Canada.
B) A temporary item that narrows that gap between accounting and tax values of an asset or liability.
C) A temporary item that widens the gap between accounting and tax values of an asset or liability.
D) The terminology used for depreciation of capital assets under for tax purposes in Canada.
Answer: C
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

7) When will a terminal loss occur?

A) When proceeds of disposal are less than undepreciated capital cost.
B) When proceeds of disposal are between undepreciated capital cost and original cost.
C) When proceeds of disposal are more than undepreciated capital cost.
D) When proceeds of disposal are less than original cost.
Answer: A
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

16
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
8) When will there be a recapture of depreciation?
A) When proceeds of disposal are less than undepreciated capital cost.
B) When proceeds of disposal are between undepreciated capital cost and original cost.
C) When proceeds of disposal are more than undepreciated capital cost.
D) When proceeds of disposal are less than original cost.
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

9) When will there be recapture and a capital gain?

A) When proceeds of disposal are less than undepreciated capital cost.
B) When proceeds of disposal are between undepreciated capital cost and original cost.
C) When proceeds of disposal are more than undepreciated capital cost.
D) When proceeds of disposal are more than original cost.
Answer: D
Diff: 2 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

10) A company has income before tax of $350,000, which includes a permanent difference of $65,000
relating to non-taxable dividend income. There are no other permanent or temporary differences. The
income tax rate is 45%. The taxes payable are:
A) $186,750
B) $128,250
C) $157,500
D) $285,000
Answer: B
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

11) A company has income before tax of $200,000. The company also has a temporary difference of
$80,000 relating to capital cost allowance (CCA) in excess of depreciation expense recorded for the year.
There are no other permanent or temporary differences. The income tax rate is 40%. The taxes payable
are:
A) $48,000
B) $80,000
C) $112,000
D) $32,000
Answer: A
Diff: 1 Type: MC
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

17
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
12) Which statement is correct?
A) Undepreciated capital cost (UCC) is the net carrying amount of an asset or asset class for tax purposes.
B) A deductible temporary difference is a temporary difference that results in future taxable income being
more than accounting income.
C) A terminal loss is the tax loss arising from the sale of an asset for proceeds above its undepreciated
capital cost.
D) Recaptured depreciation is the taxable income recorded for the reversal of previous capital cost
allowance when the sale proceeds of an asset are less than its undepreciated capital cost.
Answer: A
Diff: 3 Type: MC
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

13) Describe what is meant by a permanent difference.

Answer: A permanent difference arises from a transaction or event that affects accounting income but
never taxable income, or vice versa.
Diff: 1 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

14) Describe what is meant by a timing difference.

Answer: A timing difference arises from a transaction or event that affects both accounting income and
taxable income but in different reporting periods.
Diff: 1 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

18
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
15) Match the following terms with their definitions.

Term # Definition
1.Permanent Difference Arises from a transaction or event that affects both
accounting income and taxable income but in different
reporting periods.
2. Taxable Temporary A temporary difference that results in future taxable
Difference income being less than accounting income.
3. Deferred Tax Liability A temporary difference that results in future taxable
income being higher than accounting income.
4. Deductible Temporary The amount of income tax recoverable in future periods
Difference as a result of deductible temporary differences, losses
carried forward, or tax credits carried forward.
5. Deferred Tax Asset The amount of income tax payable in future deferred tax
liability periods as a result of taxable temporary
differences.

6. Temporary Difference Arises from a transaction or event that affects

accounting income but never taxable income, or vice
versa.

Answer:
# Definition
6 (Temporary Difference) Arises from a transaction or event that affects
both accounting income and taxable income but
in different reporting periods.
4 (Deductible Temporary A temporary difference that results in future
Difference) taxable income being less than accounting
income.
2 (Taxable Temporary A temporary difference that results in future
Difference) taxable income being higher than accounting
income.
5 (Deferred Tax Asset) The amount of income tax recoverable in future
periods as a result of deductible temporary
differences, losses carried forward, or tax credits
carried forward.
3 (Deferred Tax Liability) The amount of income tax payable in future
deferred tax liability periods as a result of
taxable temporary differences.
1 (Permanent Difference) Arises from a transaction or event that affects
accounting income but never taxable income, or
vice versa.

Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

19
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
16) Why is it necessary to distinguish permanent differences from temporary differences?
Answer: It is necessary to distinguish permanent differences from temporary differences because the
latter will reverse while the former will not. Temporary differences reflect differences in timing of
recognition in financial reporting standards versus tax laws (when something is taxed). Permanent
differences reflect differences in the tax base (i.e., what is and is not taxed).
Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

17) Why does the tax system appear to treat profits and losses asymmetrically?
Answer: Currently, Canadian tax laws allow corporations to carry an operating loss backward for 3 years
and forward for 20 years, and capital losses backward for 3 years and forward indefinitely. Carrying a
loss back to offset taxable income in a prior year produces a tax refund. However, carrying a loss forward
has no immediate cash flow benefits until the company earns income.
When the business is profitable, the government is happy to receive its 30% share. However, the
government is reluctant to contribute its 30% share for losses because it may not have reliable information
on the source of that loss. Consequently, the government is only willing to provide refunds on taxes
previously paid for losses carried back, but it is unwilling to pay for losses in the absence of prior profits.
Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

18) Why does Capital Cost Allowance (CCA) usually exceed the amount of depreciation for tax purposes?
Answer: Capital cost allowance (CCA) usually exceeds the amount of depreciation for accounting
purposes due to governments' desire to encourage investment in capital assets. High capital cost
allowance deductions decrease taxes payable in the early years of the asset resulting in a tax deferral.

Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

19) Explain the large and growing amount of deferred tax liabilities on corporations' balance sheets
mentioned in the opening vignette of this chapter.
Answer: Temporary differences due to depreciation tend to build up over time because enterprises
continually acquire assets to augment those that are aging and to expand capacity for growth. This
accumulation of temporary differences explains the large and growing amount of deferred tax liabilities
on corporations' balance sheets mentioned in the opening vignette.
Diff: 2 Type: SA
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

20
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
20) Indicate whether the item will result in a deductible temporary difference, taxable temporary
difference or neither.

Deductible Taxable Neither

temporary temporary
Item difference difference
Rent revenue collected in advance that is
taxable in the year received
CCA that exceeds depreciation expense for
property, plant, and equipment
Membership dues that are not deductible
Percentage of completion income that is
taxable only once the contract is complete
Dividends received that are not taxable

Answer:
Deductible Taxable Neither
temporary temporary
Item difference difference
Rent revenue collected in advance that is
taxable in the year received ✓
CCA that exceeds depreciation expense for
property, plant, and equipment ✓
Membership dues that are not deductible ✓
Percentage of completion income that is
taxable only once the contract is complete ✓
Dividends received that are not taxable ✓

Diff: 2 Type: ES
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

21
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
21) Indicate whether the item would result in future income taxes being higher, future income taxes being
lower or neither:

Future income
Future income taxes taxes will be
Item will be lower higher Neither
Warranty expense accrued but not
deductible until actual costs incurred
CCA that exceeds depreciation expense
for property, plant, and equipment
Dividends received that are not taxable

A deferred tax asset for rent revenue

received in advance and taxed upon
receipt
Equipment that has a carrying value
above undepreciated capital cost

Answer:
Future income Future income
taxes will be taxes will be
Item lower higher Neither
Warranty expense accrued but not deductible
until actual costs incurred ✓
CCA that exceeds depreciation expense for
property, plant, and equipment ✓
Dividends received that are not taxable
✓
A deferred tax asset for rent revenue received
in advance and taxed upon receipt ✓
Equipment that has a carrying value above
undepreciated capital cost ✓

Diff: 2 Type: ES
Skill: Concept
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

22
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
22) A company has income before tax of $350,000, which includes a permanent difference of $65,000
relating to non-taxable dividend income. There are no other permanent or temporary differences. The
income tax rate is 45%.

Required:
Compute the amount of taxes payable and income tax expense.
Answer: Income before tax $350,000
Non-taxable dividend income (permanent difference) (65,000)
Taxable income and accounting income for computing tax expense $285,000
Tax rate 45%
Income tax payable and income tax expense $128,250
Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

23) A company has income before tax of $200,000. The company also has a temporary difference of
$80,000 relating to capital cost allowance (CCA) in excess of depreciation expense recorded for the year.
There are no other permanent or temporary differences. The income tax rate is 40%.

Required:
Compute the amount of taxes payable and income tax expense.
Answer: Income before tax $200,000
CCA in excess of depreciation (80,000)
Taxable income $120,000
Tax rate 40%
Income tax payable $48,000

Income before tax $200,000

Tax rate 40%
Income tax expense $80,000
Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

23
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
24) The following summarizes information relating to Gonzalez Corporation's operations for the current
year.

Sales revenue 4,600,000

Dividend revenue (not taxable) 120,000
Operating expenses other than depreciation (3,220,000)
Depreciation (300,000)
Income before tax 1,200,000
Capital cost allowance claimed 600,000
Income tax rate 35%

Required:
Compute the amount of taxes payable and income tax expense for Gonzalez Corporation.
Answer:

Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

24
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
25) The following summarizes information relating to Gonzalez Corporation's operations for the current
year.

Sales revenue 5,600,000

Dividend revenue (not taxable) 180,000
Operating expenses other than depreciation (4,000,000)
Depreciation (500,000)
Income before tax 1,280,000
Capital cost allowance claimed 800,000
Income tax rate 45%

Required:
Compute the amount of taxes payable and income tax expense for Gonzalez Corporation.
Answer:

Diff: 1 Type: ES
Skill: Comp
Objective: 16.2 Analyze the effect of permanent and temporary differences on income tax expense and income tax
liabilities under IFRS.

25
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 "To the West! to the West! to the land of the free." So my farmer
friend sang to me twenty years ago. The tradition survives. The
American citizen believes that a man is freer in America than he is
for instance in England. If freedom means the power of the
individual to do what he likes without being interfered with by laws
then no man can ever be quite free anywhere except on a desert
island. I, as an individual, may earnestly desire to go out into a
crowded thoroughfare and shoot at the street cars with a revolver. I
am not free to do this in any civilized country in the world. For
people with desires of that kind there is no such thing as liberty. The
freedom of the individual is everywhere a compromise between his
personal inclination and the general sense of the community. Men
are more free where the community makes fewer laws, less free
where the community makes more. In England I can, if I like, buy,
and drink at dinner, a bottle of beer in the restaurant car of any train
which has a restaurant car, in any part of the country. In certain
states in America I cannot buy a bottle of beer in the restaurant car
of the train. There is a law which stops me. It may be a very good
law. The infringement of my liberty which it entails may be for my
good and the good of society in general; but where that law exists I
am certainly less free than where it does not exist.
The tendency of modern democratic states is to make more and
more laws and thereby to confine within ever narrower limits the
freedom of the individual man. A few years ago an Englishman could
send his child to school or keep his child at home without any
education just as he chose. Now he must send his child to school.
The law insists on it. The Irishman, in most parts of Ireland, can still,
if he likes, allow his child to grow up without ever going to school.
There is no law to interfere with him. In that particular respect
Ireland is freer than England, for England has gone further along the
path of curtailing individual liberty. In the matter of buying beer
England is freer than America, because you can buy beer anywhere
in England if you go to a house licensed to sell beer. In some parts
of America there are no houses licensed to sell beer and you cannot
buy it. America has, in this particular respect, gone further than
England along the path of curtailing individual liberty.
 There are several other things about which there are laws in
America which do not exist in England and with regard to which
America is not so free a country as England is. But there are also
laws in England which do not exist in America. The Englishman is
more or less accustomed to his laws. He has got into the habit of
obeying them and they do not seem to interfere with his freedom.
The American laws, to which he is not accustomed, strike him as
unwarrantable examples of minor tyranny. But it is likely that the
American is, in the same way, accustomed to his laws and is not
irritated by them. He has got into the way of not wanting to buy
beer in Texas, and does not feel that his liberty is curtailed by the
existence of a law which it does not occur to him to break. He may
be, on the other hand, profoundly annoyed by English laws, to which
he is not accustomed. It may strike him, when he comes to England,
that his liberty is being continually interfered with just as an
Englishman feels himself continually hampered in America. I can, for
instance, understand that an American in England might feel that his
liberty was most unwarrantably interfered with by the law which
obliges him to have a penny stamp on every check he writes. It
must strike him as monstrous that he cannot get his own money out
of a bank without paying the government for being allowed to do so.
After all it is his money and the Government is not even a banker.
Why should he pay for taking a sovereign from the little pile of
sovereigns which his banker keeps for him when he would not have
to pay for taking one out of a stocking if he adopted the old-
fashioned plan of keeping his money there? The Englishman feels no
annoyance at the payment of this penny. He is so entirely
accustomed to it that it seems to him a violation of one of the laws
of nature to write a check on a simple, unstamped piece of paper.
On the whole, although the citizens of both countries feel free
enough when they are at home, there is probably less freedom, that
is to say there are more laws, in America than in England. America is
more thoroughly democratic in constitution than England is and
therefore less free. This seems a paradox, but is in reality a simple
statement of obvious fact, nor is there any difficulty in seeing the
reason for it. Democracies produce professional politicians. The
professional politician differs from the amateur or voluntary politician
exactly as any professional differs from any amateur. An amateur
carpenter saws wood and hammers nails for the fun of the thing,
and stops sawing and hammering as soon as sawing and hammering
cease to amuse him. The professional carpenter must go on sawing
and hammering even if he does not want to, because it is in this way
that he earns his bread. He therefore gets a great deal more sawing
and hammering done in a year than any amateur does. It is the
same with politicians. The amateur politician makes a law now and
then when he feels like it. When law-making ceases to interest him
he goes off to hunt or fish. The professional politician must go on
making laws even though the business has become inexpressibly
wearisome. Thus it is that in states where there are professional
politicians, in democratic states, there are more laws, and therefore
less freedom, than in states which only have amateur politicians.
America, being slightly more democratic than England, has slightly
more laws and slightly less freedom.
But it would be easy to make too much of this difference
between England and America.
The freedom which men value most is very little affected by laws.
Laws neither give nor withhold it. Freedom is really an atmosphere
in which we are able to breathe without anxiety or fear. There are
some societies in which a man must be constantly watching himself
lest he should give expression to a thought or an opinion which is
liable to offend some powerful interest or outrage some cherished
conviction. All sorts of unpleasant consequences follow incautious
utterance of an unpopular opinion, or even the discovery that
unpopular opinions are held. It may be that the rash individual is
looked on very coldly. It may be that those who seem to be his
friends gradually draw away from him. It may be—this is not so
unpleasant but quite unpleasant enough—that he is assailed in
newspapers and held up in their columns to public odium. It may be
that he is made to suffer in more material ways, that he loses
business or runs the risk of being deprived of some position which
he holds. In very uncivilized communities he is sometimes actually
treated with physical violence. The windows of his house are broken
or he is mobbed. The dread of some or all of these penalties makes
him very cautious. He goes through life glancing timidly from side to
side, always anxious, always a little frightened and therefore—since
fear is the real antithesis of liberty—never free.
All communities suffer from spasmodic fits of this kind of
intolerance. In England in the year 1900 it was not safe to be a pro-
Boer, and England at that time was not a free country. England is
now free to quite an extraordinary extent. A man may hold and
express almost any conceivable opinion without suffering for it. He
can stand up in a public assembly and say hard things about
England herself, point out her faults in plain and even bitter
language. The English people as a whole remain totally indifferent to
what he says about them. If the hard thing is said wittily they laugh.
If it is said dully they yawn. In neither case do they display any signs
of anger. They succeed in giving the stranger in their midst the
impression that nothing he does or says matters in the least so long
as he avoids crossing the indefinable line which separates "good
form" from bad. His manners may get him into trouble. His opinions
will not.
America is free too in this same way, but is not, I think, so free
as England. There are several subjects about which it is not wise to
talk quite freely in America. The ordinary middle class American, the
man with whom one falls into casual conversation in a train, is
sensitive about criticism of his country and its institutions in a way
that the ordinary Englishman is not. It may very well be that in this
he is the Englishman's superior. A perfectly detached judge of
humanity, some epicurean deity observing all things with passion-
less calm and weighing all emotion in the scales of absolute justice—
might, quite conceivably, rank a slightly resentful patriotism higher
than tolerant apathy. We Irishmen are not tolerant of criticism, and I
sincerely hope that ours is the better part. We do not like the
expression of opinions which differ from our own and are inclined to
suppress them with some violence when we can. As a nation we
value truth far more than liberty; truth being, of course, the thing
which we ourselves believe; obviously that, for we would not believe
it unless we were quite sure that it was true. Americans are not so
whole hearted as we are in this matter. The more highly educated
Americans are even inclined to drift into a tolerant agnosticism which
is almost English. But most Americans are still a little intolerant of
strange opinions and still have enough conscious patriotism to resent
criticism.
It is the fault of a great quality. No society can be both
enthusiastic and free. It is the tips and the equality over again. We
can not have things both ways. If society allows a man, without pain
or penalty, to say exactly what he means, it is always because that
society is convinced, deep down in its soul, that he cannot possibly
mean what he says. A man is free to speak what he chooses, to
criticize, to abuse, to sneer, wherever his fellow men have made up
their minds that it does not matter what he says how keenly he
criticizes, abuses or sneers. On the other hand, a society which is
very much in earnest about anything,—and a great many Americans
are—will not suffer differences of opinion patiently and will always
be resentful of criticism. Say to an Englishman that American football
is superior to the Rugby Union game. He will look at you with a
sleepy expression in his eyes, and, after a short pause, politeness
requiring some answer from him, he will say: "Is it really?" His tone
suggests that he does not care whether it is or not, but that he
means to go on playing the Rugby Union game if he plays at all, a
point about which he has not quite made up his mind. Say to an
American that Rugby Union football is superior to his game and he
will look at you with highly alert but slightly troubled eyes. He wants
to respect you if he can, and he does not like to hear you saying a
thing which cannot possibly be true. But he too is polite.
"There may be," he says, "some points of superiority about the
English game—but on the whole—think of the organization of our
forwards. Think of the amount of thought required. Think of the
rapid decisions which have to be made. Think of——But come and
see the match next Saturday and then you'll understand."
There is still another kind of freedom—freedom to behave as we
like, freedom of manners. This is almost as important as freedom to
speak and think without fear of consequences. Indeed, for most
people it is more important. Only a few of us think, or want to say
what we think. All of us have to behave, to have manners of some
sort either good or bad. It is curious to notice that, while men
everywhere are acquiescing without much protest to the curtailment
of the sort of freedom which is affected by law, they are steadily
claiming and securing more and more freedom of manners. We are
far less bound by conventions than we used to be. There was a time
when everybody possessed and once a week wore what were called
"Sunday clothes." One hardly ever hears the phrase now, and men
go to church in coats which would have struck their grandmothers as
distinctly unsuited to a place of worship. Sunday clothes were a
bondage and we have broken free. There was, very long ago, a
definite code of manners binding upon men and women when they
met together. When it prevailed the intercourse between the sexes
must have been singularly stiff and uncomfortable. There were many
things which a woman could not do without losing her character for
womanliness, and many things which a man could not do in the
company of ladies—smoke, for instance.
It is, I think, women and not men who decide how much of this
sort of liberty people are to enjoy. If I am right about this, then
American women are more generous than English women. There is
much more freedom in the matter of clothes in America than
England. I remember hearing an Englishwoman complain that no
matter how she tried she never could succeed in dressing correctly
in America. In England she knew exactly the kind of gown to wear at
an afternoon party, at a small dinner, at a large dinner, at an evening
reception, in the box of a theater. In America she perpetually found
herself wearing the wrong thing. I imagine that in reality she did not
wear the wrong thing, because there is no such rigid standard of
appropriateness of dress in America as there is in England. More
latitude is allowed, and if a gown is hardly ever correct it is also
hardly ever wrong. Every man who sits in the stalls of a London
theater must display eighteen inches of white shirt above the top
button of his waistcoat. In America he may wear a blue flannel shirt
if he likes, and nobody cares whether it is visible beneath his tie or
not. In England a man who dines in a very smart restaurant must
wear a tail coat and a white tie. In America he can, if he chooses,
wear a tail coat and a black tie, or a short coat and a white tie.
There is no fixed rule determining the connection between coats and
ties.
It is not only the class of people who dine in smart restaurants
and sit in stalls of theaters which is subject to rules of this kind.
Every class has its own conventions, and, so far as my observation
goes, every class is a little freer in America than it is in England. No
English chauffeur with any self-respect would consent to drive a
motor car about London unless he were wearing some kind of
uniform. In America the most magnificent cars are frequently driven
by chauffeurs in gray tweed suits with ordinary caps on their heads.
I am nearly sure that it is women, the women of our own class,
who decide what clothes we shall wear and what clothes they will
wear themselves. I am quite sure that it is they who regulate the
degree of formal stiffness there is to be in our intercourse with
them. English women have to a very considerable extent given up
requiring from men those symbols of respect which had long ago
ceased to be anything but the mere conventional survivals of the
mediæval idea of chivalry. Men and women in England meet on
friendlier and more equal terms than they used to. American women
have gone even further than the English in setting themselves and
us free from the old restrictions. They invite comradeship and have,
as far as possible, swept away the barriers to free intercourse
between sex and sex.
To some people liberty of any sort, liberty for its own sake, will
always seem a desirable thing. These will prefer the manners of
America to those of England, but will cling to their admiration of the
Englishman's tolerance of criticism. There are others—it is a matter
of temperament—who prefer restraint, who like to talk cautiously,
who cling to social conventions. To them it will be a comfort to know
that in one respect the American woman is not so free as her English
sister. In England a woman may, without loss of reputation, smoke
almost anywhere, anywhere that men smoke, except in the streets
and the entrance halls of theaters. In New York there are only two
or three restaurants in which a woman is allowed to smoke. Even if
she is indifferent to her reputation and does not mind being
considered fast, she cannot smoke in the other restaurants. The
head waiter comes and stops her if she tries. This may be quite
right. I do not know whether it is or not. Many very strong
arguments may be and are brought against women smoking. It is, I
am thankful to say, no business of mine to weigh them against the
other arguments which go to show that women are as well entitled
to the solace of tobacco as men are. What interests me far more
than the arguments on either side is the fact that American women
are in this one respect much less free than English women. The
women of both nations smoke, but the American woman must do it
in privacy or semi-privacy. The Englishwoman inhales her cigarette
with untroubled enjoyment in any restaurant in London. She must
dress herself strictly as convention prescribes for each occasion. She
must be a little careful in her intercourse with men. She has not yet
got a vote. But she may smoke. The American woman has much
more freedom in the matter of clothes. She can be as friendly with a
man as she likes. In several states she has a vote. But society in
general frowns on her smoking and sets its policeman, the head
waiter, to prevent her doing it. I should myself prefer a cigarette to a
vote; but I am fond of tobacco, and all elections bore me, so I am
not an unprejudiced judge. American women may be in this matter,
as indeed they certainly are in other matters, nobler than I am. They
may gladly sacrifice tobacco for the sake of the franchise, but I do
not see why they should not have both.
 CHAPTER IX
WOMAN IN THE STATES
There is a story told about Lord Beaconsfield which, if true, goes
to show that he was not nearly so astute a man as is generally
supposed. A lady, an ardent advocate of Woman Suffrage, once
called on him and tried to convince him of the justice of her cause.
She was a very pretty lady and she spoke with great enthusiasm.
One imagines flashing eyes, heightened color, graceful gestures of
the hands. Lord Beaconsfield listened to her and looked at her. When
she had finished speaking he said: "You darling!" The lady, we are
told, was angry, thinking that she had been insulted. She was
perfectly right. The remark, which might under other circumstances
have been received with blushing satisfaction, was just then and
there a piece of intolerable rudeness. It was stupid besides. But
perhaps the great statesman meant to be rude. Perhaps, on the
other hand, he was carried away for the moment and ceased to be
intelligent. Perhaps the whole story was invented by some malicious
person and is entirely without foundation. In any case it is a serious
warning to the man who sits down to write about American women.
It makes him hesitate, fearfully, before venturing to say the very first
thing he must want to say. But he who writes takes his life in his
hands. I should be little better than a poltroon if I shrank from
uttering the truth.
I was asked by an able and influential editor in New York to write
an article on American women. It is not every day that I am thus
invited to write articles, so I take a pardonable pride in mentioning
the request of this American editor. It was after dinner that he asked
me, and a lady who was with us heard him do it. I looked at her
before I answered. If she had scowled or even frowned I should not
now be writing about American women. She encouraged me with a
nod and a smile. Yet she knew—she must have known—what I
should write first of all. Upon her head be at least part of the blame.
She not merely smiled. She went on to persuade me to write the
article. By persuading me she helped to make me quite certain that
what I am writing is true.
The American woman is singularly charming.
Is this an insult? I think of the many American women whom I
met who were kind enough to talk to me, and I know that this is not
what they would like to have written about them. Some of them
were very earnest knights errant, who rode about redressing human
wrongs. It happens occasionally, not often, of course, but very
occasionally, that women with causes are not charming. They are
inclined to overemphasize their causes, to keep on hammering at a
possible convert, to become just a little tiresome. This is, as far as I
could judge, never the case with the American ladies who have
causes. Others whom I met were learned and knew all about
philosophies dim to me. Others again were highly cultured. I am an
ignorant and stupid man. Very clever women sometimes frighten
me. I was never frightened in America. Others again, without being
learned or particularly cultured, were brilliant. They were all
charming. That is the truth. I have written it, and if the skies come
tumbling indignantly about my ears they just must tumble.
"Impavidum ferient ruinæ;" but I hope nothing so bad as that will
happen to me.
There are people in the world who believe that we are born again
and again, rising or sinking in the scale of living things at each
successive incarnation according as we behave ourselves well or
badly in our present state. If this creed were true, I should try very
hard indeed to be good, because I should want, next time I am
born, to be an American woman. She seems to me to have a better
kind of life than the woman of any other nation, or, indeed, than
anybody else, man or woman. She is, as I hope I have suggested,
more free than her European sister. "So full of burrs," said a great
lady of old times, "is this work-a-day world, that our very petticoats
will catch them." This is a true estimate of the position of the
European woman. They who wear petticoats over here must walk
warily with chaperons beside them. But in America there are either
fewer burrs or petticoats are made of some better material. The
American woman, even when she is quite young, can go freely
enough and no scandalous suggestions attach to her unless she
does something very outrageous. She has in other ways too a far
better time than the English woman. American social life seems to
me—the word is one to apologize for—gynocentric. It is arranged
with a view to the convenience and delight of women. Men come in
where and how they can. The late Mr. Price Collier observed this,
and drew from it the deduction that the English man tends on the
whole to be more efficient than the American, everything in an
English home being sacrificed to his good. That may or may not be
true; but I think the American woman is certainly more her own
mistress than the Englishwoman, just because America does its best
for women and only its second best for men.
I do not pretend to be superior to these advantages. I like a
good time as well as any one. But I have other ambitions. And I do
not want to be an American woman only for the sake of material
gains. She seems to me to deserve her good luck because she has
done her business in life exceedingly well, better on the whole than
the American man has done his.
I am—I wish to make this clear at once—a good feminist. No
man is less inclined than I am to endorse the words of the German
Emperor and confine woman's activities to "Kirche, Küche und
Kinder." I would, if I had my way, give every woman a vote. I would
invite her to discuss the most intricate political problems, with a full
confidence that she could not possibly make a worse muddle of
them than our male politicians do. I should like to see her
conducting great businesses, doctoring her neighbors, pleading for
them in law courts, driving railway engines, and, if she wanted to,
carrying a rifle or steering a submarine. I would place woman in
every possible way on an equality with man and confine her with no
restriction except those with which she voluntarily impedes her own
activities, like petticoats, stays, and blouses which hook up the back.
Having made this full confession of faith, I shall not, I hope, be
reproached for appearing to recognize a distinction between
woman's business in life, the thing which the American woman has
done very well, and man's business, which the American man seems
to me to have managed rather badly. Strictly speaking, in the ideal
state all public affairs are women's just as much as men's. Strictly
speaking, again in the ideal state, man is just as responsible as
woman for the arts of domestic life. But we are not yet living in the
ideal state, and for a long while now the household has been
recognized as woman's sphere, while man has resented her
interference with anything outside the circle of social and family life.
It is in these matters which have been entrusted to her that the
American woman has shown herself superior to the American man. I
admit, of course, that the American man has done a great many
things very brilliantly. But he does not seem to me to have
succeeded in making the business of living, so far as it falls within
his province, either comfortable or agreeable. The Englishman has
done better. Examples of what I mean absolutely crowd upon me.
Take the question of cooking food. The American man, left to his
own devices, is not strikingly successful with food. The highest
average of cooking in England is to be found in good men's clubs.
You may, and often do, get excellent dinners in private houses in
England; but you are surer of an excellent dinner in a first rate club.
In America it is the other way about. Many men's clubs have skilful
cooks, but you are on the whole more likely to get very good food in
a woman's club or in a private house than in a man's club. I am not
myself an expert in cooked food. The subject has never had a real
fascination for me. But I have a sense of taste like my better
educated gourmet brethren, and I am convinced that where the
American woman has control of the cooking the business is better
done than it generally is in England, and far better done than when
it is left to American men.
The kindred subjects of drinks, again, marks the superiority of
the American woman. For some reason quite obscure to me, women
are not supposed to know anything about wine. They either do not
like it at all or they like bad kinds of wine. Wine is man's business in
all countries. In America wine is dear, and usually of indifferent
quality. Man has mismanaged the cellar. On the other hand, women
are supposed—again the reason is beyond me—to like eating
sweets, to be specialists in that whole range of food which in
America goes under the name of candies. Men have not created the
demand for candies or secured the supply. They are woman's affair.
The consequence is that American candies are better than any
others in the world, better even than the French. It is necessary to
search New York narrowly and patiently in order to find a good
bottle of claret. I speak on this matter as an outsider, for I drink but
little claret myself; but I am assured by highly skilled experts that
the fact is as I state it. On the other hand—I know this by
experience—you can satisfy your soul with an almost infinite variety
of chocolates without going three hundred yards from the door of
your hotel in New York or Philadelphia.
The one form of alcoholic drink in which America surpasses the
rest of the world is the cocktail. I have never yet seen a properly
written history of cocktails. The subject still waits its philosopher. But
I am inclined to think that the cocktail, the original of the species,
Manhattan, Bronx or whatever it may have been, was invented by a
woman. True, these drinks are now universally mixed by men. But
the inspiration is unquestionably feminine. Formulæ for the making
of cocktails exist. I was once asked to review a book which
contained several hundred receipts for cocktails. But every one
agrees that the formula is of minor importance. The cocktail
depends for its excellence not on careful measurements, but on the
incalculable and indescribable thing called personality. The most
skilful pharmaceutical chemist, trained all his life to the accurate
weighing of scruples and measurement of drams, might well fail as a
maker of cocktails. He would fail if he did not possess an instinct for
the art. Now this is characteristic of all women's work. Man reaches
his conclusions by argument, bases his convictions on reason, and is
generally wrong. Woman responds to emotion, follows instinct, and
is very often right. Man is the drudging scientist, patient, dull.
Woman is the dashing empiricist, inconsequential, brilliant. The
cocktail must be hers. I shall continue, until strong evidence to the
contrary is offered to me, to believe that the credit for this glory of
American life belongs to her and not to man.
It would, no doubt, be insulting to say that part of the business
of a woman, as distinguished from a man, is to dress well and be
agreeable. I should not dream of saying such a thing. But there can
be no harm in suggesting that it is the duty of both sexes to do
these things. There is no real reason why an idealist, man or
woman, should not be pleasant to look at, nor is it necessary that
very estimable people should administer snubs to the rest of us. It
seems to me that even very good people are better when they have
nice manners and pleasanter when they dress well. It is not, I admit,
their fault when they are not good looking, but it is their fault if they
do not, by means of clothes, make themselves as good looking as
they can. There is no excuse for the man or woman who emphasizes
a natural ugliness. Man, I regret to say, does not often recognize his
duty in these matters. Woman, generally speaking, has done her
best. The American woman has made the very most of her
opportunities and has succeeded both in looking nice and in being
an agreeable companion. In the art of putting on her clothes she has
no superior except the Parisienne, and even in Paris itself it is often
difficult to tell, without hearing her speak, whether the lady at the
next table in a restaurant is French or American. I knew an English
mother who sent her daughter to Paris for six months in order that
the girl might learn to dress herself. The journey to America would
have been longer, but once there the girl would have had just as
good a chance of acquiring the art. I am very unskilful in describing
clothes, and the finer nuances of costume are far beyond the power
of any language at my command to express. But it is possible to
appreciate effects without being able to analyze the way in which
they are produced. The effect on the emotions of a symphony
rendered by a good orchestra is almost as great for the man who
does not know exactly what the trombones are doing as it is for the
musician who understands that they are adding to the general noise
by playing chromatic scales, or whatever it is that trombones do
play. It is the same with clothes. I cannot name materials, or discuss
styles in technical language, but I am pleasantly conscious that the
American woman has the air of being very well dressed.
I am not attempting to make a comparison between the clothes
of very wealthy women of the leisured classes in America and those
of women similarly placed in other countries. Aristocracies and
plutocracies are cosmopolitan. National characteristics are to a
considerable extent smoothed off them. The women of these classes
dress almost equally well everywhere. The possibility of comparison
exists only when one considers the comparatively poor women of
the middle and lower middle classes. It is these who, in America,
have the instinct for dressing well unusually highly developed. Some
women have this instinct. Others have not. It seems to be
distributed geographically. There are cities—no bribe would induce
me to name one of them—where the women are usually badly
dressed. You walk up and down the chief thoroughfares. You enter
the most fashionable restaurants and are oppressed by a sense of
prevailing dowdiness. It is not a question of money. The gowns
which you see, the coats, the hats have obviously cost great sums.
For half the expenditure women in other places look well dressed. It
is not a matter of the skill of dressmakers and milliners. A woman
who has not got the instinct for clothes might go to—I forget the
man's name, but he is the chief costumier in Paris—might give him a
free hand to do his best for her, and afterwards she would not look a
bit better dressed. It is not, I believe, possible to explain exactly
what she lacks. It is an extra sense, as incommunicable as an ear for
music. A woman either has it or has not. The American woman has
it.
I know—no one knows better than I do—that it is a contemptible
thing to take any notice of clothes. The soul is what matters. The
body may be in rags. The mind is what counts, and fine feathers do
not make fine birds. A great prophet would not be the less a great
prophet though his finger nails were black. I hope we should all
adore him just the same even if he never washed his face or wore a
collar. But just at first, before we got to know him really well, it is
possible that we might be a little prejudiced against him if he looked
as if he never washed. That is all I wish or mean to say about the
American woman's power of dressing herself. It disarms prejudice.
The stranger starts fair, so to speak, when he is introduced to her. In
the case of women who cannot, or for any reason will not, dress
themselves nicely, there are preliminary difficulties in the way of
appreciating their real worth.
 But the best clothes in the world are no help when it comes to
conversation, unless, indeed, one is able to discuss them in detail,
and I am not. I have met exquisitely dressed women who were very
difficult to talk to. The American woman is not one of these. Besides
being well dressed, she is a delightful talker on all subjects. She may
or may not be profound. I am not profound myself, so I have no way
of judging about that. But profoundness is not wanted in
conversation. Its proper place is in scientific books. In conversation it
is merely a nuisance, and the American woman, when she is
profound, has more sense than to show it. She talks well because
she is not in the least shy or self-conscious. Even young American
girls are not shy. Brought into sudden contact with a middle-aged
man, they treat him as an equal, with a frank sense of comradeship.
They have, apparently, no awe of advanced or advancing years.
They do not pretend to think that elderly people are in any way their
superiors, or display in the presence of the aged that kind of chilling
aloofness which is called respect. I detest people who behave as if
they respected me because I am older than they are. I recognize at
once that they are hypocrites. Boys and girls must know, in their
hearts, just as well as we do, that respect is due to the young from
the elderly and not the other way about. The ancient Romans
understood this: "Maxima debitur reverentia pueris" is in the Latin
grammar, and the Latin grammar is a good authority on all subjects
connected with ancient Roman civilization.
It is her power of making herself agreeable which is the greatest
charm of the American woman, a greater charm than her ability in
dressing. I am a man very little practiced in the art of conversation.
A dinner party—a party of any kind, but particularly a dinner party—
is a thing from which I shrink. I am always very sorry for the two
women who are placed beside me. I know that they will have to
make great exertions to keep up a conversation with me. I watch
them suffering and am myself a prey to excruciating pangs of self-
reproach. But my agony is less in America than elsewhere. The
American woman must of course suffer as much as the
Englishwoman when I take her in to dinner; but she possesses in an
extraordinary degree the art of not showing it. She frequently
deceives me for several minutes at a time, making me think that she
is actually enjoying herself. She is able to do this because she has an
amazing vitality and a very acute kind of intelligence. Now, the
highest compliment which a woman can pay to a man is to enjoy his
company. The American woman understands this and succeeds in
pretending she is doing it. She is wise, too. Recognizing that even
her powers have their limits, and that no woman, however vital and
intelligent, can go on disguising her weariness for very long, she
makes her dinners and luncheons as short as possible, shorter than
similar functions are in England. She does not attempt anything in
the way of a long-distance contest with the heavy stupidity of the
ordinary man. Her's is the triumph of the sprinter. For a short time
she flashes, sympathizes, subtly flatters, talks with amazing
brilliance, charms. Then she escapes. What happens to her next I
can only guess, but I imagine that she must be very much
exhausted.
 CHAPTER X
MEN AND HUSBANDS
Comic papers on both sides of the Atlantic have adopted the
marriages between American women and English men of the upper
classes as a standing joke; one of those jokes of which the public
never gets tired, whose infinite variety repetition does not stale. The
fun lies in the idea of barter. The Englishman has a title. The
American woman has dollars. He lays a coronet at her feet. She
hands money bags to him. Essentially the joke is the same on
whichever side of the Atlantic it is made. But there is a slight
difference in the way the parts of it are emphasized. The tendency
among American humorists is to dwell a little on the greed of the
Englishman, who is represented as incapable of earning money for
himself. The English jester lays more stress on the American
woman's desire to be called "my lady," and pokes sly fun at the true
democrat's fondness for titles. I appreciate the joke thoroughly
wherever it is made, and I invariably laugh heartily at it. But I
decline to take it as anything more than a joke. It is not a precise
and scientific explanation of fact.
There are a great many marriages between American women of
large or moderate fortune and English men, or other Europeans, of
title. That is the fact. No doubt the dollars are as attractive to
noblemen as they are to anybody else. There are a number of
pleasant things, steam yachts, for instance, which can be got by
those who have dollars, but not by those who are without them.
They may occasionally be the determining factor in the choice of a
wife. But I feel sure that most Englishmen, when they marry
American women, do so because they like them. They marry the
woman, not the money. In the same way a title is a very pleasant
thing to have. I have never enjoyed the sensation and never shall,
but I know that it must be most agreeable to be styled "Your Grace,"
or to have a coronet embroidered on a pocket handkerchief. But I do
not believe that American women marry coronets. They marry men.
The coronet counts, I daresay, but the man counts more.
It is interesting to notice that, although there are many
marriages between American women and Englishmen, there are
comparatively few marriages between English women and American
men. If it were a mere question of exchanging money for titles we
might expect English women of title to marry American men. There
are a great many English women with titles and a great many rich
American men. They might marry each other, but they do not, not,
at all events, in large numbers. It is true that the woman cannot,
unless she is a princess, give her husband a title, as a man can give
a title to his wife. But it is no small thing to have a wife with a title.
It is a pleasure well worth buying, if it is to be bought. But
apparently it is not. The English woman of title prefers to marry an
English man, however rich Americans may be. The American man
prefers American women, though none of them have titles. Exact
statistics about these marriages are not available, but we may take
the vitality of current jokes as an indication of what the facts are.
The joke about the marriage between Miss Sadie K. Bock, daughter
of the well-known dollar dictator of Capernaum, Pa., U.S.A., and the
Viscount Fitzeffingham Plantagenet, is fresh and always popular. But
no one ever made a joke about a marriage between the dollar
dictator's son and Lady Ermyntrude. There would be no point in that
joke if it were made because the thing does not happen, or does not
happen often enough to strike the popular imagination.
The truth appears to be that American women, apart from any
question of their dowries, are attractive both to English and
American men. English men, on the other hand, are attractive both
to English and American women.
I occupy in this investigation the position of an unprejudiced
outsider. I am neither English nor American, but Irish, and I can
afford to discuss the matter without passion, since Irish women are
admittedly more attractive than any others in the world and Irish
men are seldom tempted to marry outside their own people. A very
wise English lady, one who has much experience of life, once said
that young Englishmen of good position are lured into marrying
music hall dancers, a thing which occasionally happens to them,
because they find these ladies more entertaining and exciting than
girls of their own class. I do not know whether this is true or not,
but if it is it helps to explain the attractiveness of American women.
There is always a certain unexpectedness about them. They are
always stimulating and agreeable. It is much more difficult to
account for the attractiveness of the English man.
The manners of a well-bred English man are not superior to
those of a well-bred American man. Nor are they inferior. Looked at
superficially, they are the same. As far as mere conventional
behavior toward women is concerned, there is no difference
between an Englishman and an American. A well-mannered
Englishman rises up and opens the door for a woman when she
leaves the room. So does a well-mannered American. The
Englishman hands tea, bread and butter or cake to a woman before
he takes tea, bread and butter or cake for himself. So does the
American. The outward acts are identical. But there is a subtle
difference in the spirit which inspires them. The English man does
these things because he is chivalrous. His manners are based on the
theory "Noblesse oblige." The woman belongs to the weaker sex, he
to the stronger. All courtesy is therefore due to her. This is the
theory which underlies the behavior of Englishmen to women. Good
manners are a survival, one of the few survivals, of the old idea of
chivalry; and chivalry was the nobly conceived homage of the strong
to the weak, of the superior to the inferior. The American,
performing exactly the same outward acts, is reverent. And
reverence is essentially the opposite of chivalry. It is not the homage
of the strong to the weak, but the obeisance of the inferior in the
presence of a superior.
This difference of spirit underlies the whole relationship of men
to women in England and America. It helps to explain the fact that
the feminist movement in England is much fiercer than it is in
America. The English feminist is up against chivalry and wants
equality. The American woman, though she may claim rights, has no
inducement to destroy reverence.
 I should be very sorry to think, I should be mad to say, that this
difference in spirit has anything to do with the attractiveness of
Englishmen, considered not as temporary companions, but as
husbands. But there are, or once were, people who held the theory
that the natural woman—and all women are perhaps more or less
natural—prefers as a husband the kind of man who asserts himself
as her superior. "O. Henry" has a story of a woman who learned to
respect and love her husband only after she had goaded him into
beating her. Up to that point she had despised him thoroughly. Other
novelists, deep students of human nature all of them, have worked
on the same scheme. They are quite wrong, of course. But if they
were right they might quote the Englishman's invincible chivalry as
the reason of his attractiveness; maintaining, cynically, that a woman
prefers, in a husband, that kind of homage to the reverence that the
American man continually offers her.
The American man strikes me as more alert than the Englishman.
If this were noticeable only in New York, I should attribute the
alertness to the climate. The air of New York is extraordinarily
stimulating. The stranger feels himself tireless, as if he could go on
doing things of an exhausting kind all day long without intervals for
rest. It would be small wonder if the natives of the place were eager
beyond other men. But they are not more eager and alert than other
Americans. Therefore we cannot blame, or thank, the climate for
these qualities. They must depend upon some peculiarity of the
American nervous system, unless indeed they are the result of living
under the American constitution. A man would naturally feel it his
duty to be as alert as he could if he felt that his country was
preeminently the land of progress and that all the other countries in
the world were more or less old-fashioned and effete. But wherever
the alertness comes from it is certainly one of the characteristics of
the American man.
With it goes sanguineness. Every man who undertakes any
enterprise looks at it from two points of view. He thinks how very
nice life will be if the enterprise succeeds. He also considers how
disagreeable things will become if, for any reason, it fails to come
off. The Englishman, unless he is a politician, is temperamentally
inclined to give full weight to the possibility of failure. The American
dwells rather on the prospects of success. There are, of course, a
great many sanguine Englishmen. Most Members of Parliament, for
instance, must be extraordinarily hopeful, otherwise they would not
go on expecting to get things done by voting and listening to
speeches. Some Americans, though not many, are cautious to the
point of being almost pessimistic. But, broadly speaking, Americans
are more sanguine than Englishmen. That is why so many new
faiths, and new foods, come from America. Only a very hopeful
people could have invented Christian Science or expect to be
benefited by eating patent foods at breakfast time. That is also, I
imagine, why Americans drink so much iced water. Conscious of the
dangers of being too sanguine, they try to cool down their spirits in
the way which is generally recognized as best for reducing excessive
hopefulness. To pour cold water on anything is a proverbial
expression. The Americans pour gallons of very cold water down
their throats, which shows that they are on the watch against the
defects of their high qualities.
With the alertness and hopefulness there goes, inevitably, a
certain restlessness. "Better the devil you know than the devil you
don't" is a proverb which appeals to the English man. It could never
be popular in America. The American, if he made up his mind to go
in for the acquaintance of devils at all, would be inclined to try the
newer kinds, not merely because he would be hopeful about them,
but because he would feel sure that the old ones would bore him.
He would never settle down to a monotonous cat and dog life with a
thoroughly familiar devil. The Englishman prefers to remain where
he is unless the odds are in favor of a change being a change for the
better. The American will make a change unless he thinks it likely to
be a change for the worse.
We were greatly struck while we were in America by the fact that
there were very few gardens there. The season of the year, late
autumn, was not, indeed, favorable to gardens. Still I think we
should have recognized flower beds and the remains of flowers if we
had seen them. At first we were inclined to think that Americans do
not care for flowers; but we were constantly assured, on
unimpeachable authority, that they do. And we were not dependent
on mere assertion. We saw that Americans adorn their rooms with
cut flowers, sometimes at huge expense. They must therefore like
flowers. They also, we were told, like growing them; but as a matter
of fact they do not grow them to anything like the same extent that
flowers are grown in England or Ireland. We used to ask why people
who like flowers and would like to grow them have so few gardens.
We got several answers. The climate, of course, was one. But it is
not fair to make the climate responsible for too many things. Besides
the climate, as I have said before, is not the same all over America.
It is difficult to believe that it is everywhere fatal to gardening.
Another answer—a much more satisfactory one—was that it
takes time to create a garden, and Americans do not usually stay
long enough in one house to make it worth while to start gardening.
It is plainly an unsatisfactory thing to inaugurate a herbaceous
border in 1914 if you are likely to leave it early in 1915. As for yew
hedges and delights of that kind, no one plants them unless he has
a good hope that his son will be there to enjoy them after he has
gone. The American, so we were told, and so of course believed, is
always looking forward to moving into a new house. This is because
he is alert, sanguine and a lover of change. The Englishman is
inclined to settle down in one house, and it is very difficult to root
him out of it. Therefore gardens are commonly possible in England
and rarely so in America.
We did indeed see some gardens in America, and they were
tended with all the care which flower lovers display everywhere. We
saw in them plants brought from very different places, round which
there doubtless gathered all sorts of associations, whose blossoms
were redolent with the perfume of happy memories as well as their
own natural scents. But these gardens belonged to men who either
through the necessity of their particular occupation or through some
eccentricity of character felt that they were likely to remain in one
place.
Gardens are generally best loved and most carefully tended by
women. I have known men who took a real interest in plants, but for
the most part men who spend their leisure hours in gardens occupy
themselves in mowing the grass or scuffling the walks. They will trim
the edges of flowerbeds with shears, they will sometimes even dig,
but their hearts are not with the growing plants. Often they confess
as much openly, saying without shame that mowing is capital
exercise after office hours, or that the celery bed must be properly
trenched if it is to come to perfection. No one who works in this
spirit is a gardener, nor is a man who merely desires a tidy trimness.
To the real gardener neatness is an unimportant detail. It is better
that a flower should grow in a bed with ragged edges than that it
should wither slowly in the middle of the trimmest of lawns. It is
women, far oftener than men, who possess or are possessed by the
instinct for getting things to grow. It is after all a sort of mother
instinct, since flowers, like children, only respond to those who love
them. Probably every woman who has the mother instinct has the
garden instinct too, and most women, we may be thankful for it, are
potentially good mothers.
Perhaps it is the fact that he is content to stay still long enough
to render gardens possible which makes the Englishman attractive as
a husband. It is easy to understand that there is something very
fascinating to a garden lover in the prospect of attachment to one
particular spot. It is a great thing to feel: "Here I shall live until the
end of living comes, and then my sons will live here after me. All the
rockeries I build, all the trees I plant, all my pergolas and rose
hedges are for delight in coming years, for delight still in the years
beyond my span of living." This instinct for a settled home, of which
a garden is the symbol, is surely stronger in woman than in any
man. Woman is after all the stable part of humanity. Man fights,
invents, frets, fusses and passes. Woman is the link between the
generations. Man makes life possible and great. It is woman who
continues life, hands it on. Her nature requires stability. She feels
after settledness in the hope of finding it.
If I were a philosopher I should pursue these speculations and
write several pages about men and women which it would be very
difficult for any one to understand. But I have no taste for hunting
elusive thoughts among the shadows of vague words. I am content
to note my little facts; that American men are more restless than
Englishmen, that there are fewer gardens in America than in
England, that most women like gardens, and that there are more
marriages between American women and Englishmen than between
English women and American men.
I came across a curious example of American restlessness a little
while ago. There was a footman, very expert in his business, who
lived and earned good wages in an English house. He was an
ambitious footman, and, though his wages were good, he wanted
them to be better still. His opportunity came to him. An American
wanted a valet and was prepared to pay very large wages indeed.
The footman offered his services, and being, as I said, a very good
footman, he secured the vacant position, and the wages which were
far beyond any he would ever have earned in England. At the end of
two years he happened to meet the butler under whom he had
served in the English house. The butler congratulated him on his
great wealth. The footman, now a valet, replied that there are
several things in the world better worth having than money.
"I haven't," he said, "slept a fortnight at a time in the same bed
since I left you, and it's killing me."
Now that would not have killed or gone near killing an American
born footman, if there is such a thing as an American born footman.
He would have enjoyed it, just as his master did; for that American,
being very wealthy, could if he liked have slept in the same bed
every night for a year, every night for many years, until indeed the
bed wore out. He preferred to vary his beds as much as possible. He
had, no doubt, many beds which were in a sense his own, beds in
town houses, beds in shooting boxes, beds in fishing lodges, beds in
Europe, beds which he had bought with money and to which he had
an indefeasible title as proprietor. But not one of these was, as an
Englishman would understand the words, his own bed. There was
not one to which he came back after wandering as to a familiar
resting place. They were all just couches to sleep on, to be occupied
for a night or two, indistinguishable from those which he hired in
hotels.
I am told that the English are learning the habit of restlessness
from the Americans, as indeed they have learned many other things.
If they learn it thoroughly they will, I think, have to give up the hope
of being able to marry wealthy American women. Their titles will not
purchase desirable brides for them if they are no longer able to offer
settled homes. According to a very learned German historian, it was
the introduction of the "stabilitas loci" ideal into the western rules
which made monasticism the popular career it was in the church. It
is his old fondness for settling down and staying there which made
the Englishman so popular as a husband.
 CHAPTER XI
THE OPEN DOOR
Americans are forced by the restlessness of their nature to move
about frequently from house to house, but they have arranged that
each temporary abode is very comfortable. They are ahead of the
English in their domestic arrangements. I pay this tribute to them
very unwillingly, because I myself am more at my ease in an
inconveniently arranged house. That is because I am accustomed to
inconvenience. The English houses are greatly superior to the Irish,
therefore to go straight from an Irish house to an American, from
Connaught to Chicago, is to plunge oneself too suddenly into
strangely civilized surroundings. I admire, but I fear it would be
years before I could enjoy, an American house. I go to bed most
contentedly in a bedroom in which a single candle lights a little circle
round it, leaving dim, fascinating spaces in which anything may lurk.
I like when the candle is extinguished to see a faint glow of light
from a fire reflected on the ceiling. I find it pleasant to remember,
after I have got into bed, that I do not know in what part of the
room I left the matches, that if I awake in the night and want the
light I must go on a dangerous and exciting quest, feeling my way
toward the dressing table, sweeping one thing after another off it
while I pass my hand along in search of the matchbox. The glare of
the electric light robs bed-going of its romance. The convenient
switch beside my hand cuts me off from all chance of midnight
adventure.
I like to get out of bed on a frosty morning and find myself in a
thoroughly cold room. The effort to do this very trying thing braces
me for the day. I slip a hand, an arm, a foot, from the blankets, feel
the nip of the air, draw them back again, go through a period of
intense mental struggle, make a gallant effort, fling all the
bedclothes from me and stand shivering on the floor. I feel then that
I am a strong, virtuous man, fit to go forth and conquer. The glow of
righteousness becomes even more delightful if I find a film of ice on
the water of my jug and break it with the handle of a toothbrush. All
this is denied me in an American house. Getting out of bed there is
no real test of moral courage. The room is pleasantly warm, a
sponge is soft and pliable, not a frozen stone.
I like, where this is still possible, to have my bath in a large tin
dish, shallow and flat, which stands in the middle of the bedroom
floor with a mat under it. There are fine old Irish houses in which
this delightful way of bathing still survives. Alas! they are, even in
Ireland, getting fewer every day. The next best thing is to wander
down chilly corridors in search of the single bathroom which the
house contains. This is, fortunately, still necessary in most English
and nearly all Irish houses. Any one who is fond of the amusement
of reading house agents' advertisements must have noticed the
English economy in bathrooms. "Handsome mansion, four reception
rooms, lounge hall, billiard room, fifteen bedrooms, bath, hot and
cold." I do not believe that there is a house like that in all America.
Imagine the excitement of living in it when all the fifteen bedrooms
are full. It stimulates a man to feel, as he sallies forth with his towel
over his arm, that any one of the other fourteen inhabitants may
have reached the bath before him, that thirteen people may possibly
be waiting in a queue outside the door. To get into the bathroom in a
house of that kind at the first attempt must be like holding a hand at
bridge with four aces, four kings, four queens and a knave in it, a
thing worth living and waiting for. In America all this is denied us. A
bathroom, luxuriously arranged, adjoins each bedroom. Washing is
made so ridiculously easy that there ceases to be any virtue in it. No
one would say in America that cleanliness is next to godliness. There
is no connection between the two things. It would be as sensible to
say that breathing is a subordinate kind of virtue. In England a
dressing gown is well-nigh a necessity. I know a thoughtful host who
provides one for his guests; a warm voluminous garment in which it
is possible to go comfortably to the bathroom. In America a dressing
gown, for a man, is a useless incumbrance. I dragged one with me,
but I shall never take it again; for, like many other things, it is
misnamed. It is only when one has to stop dressing that a dressing
gown is any use.
 In these matters of the heating of houses and the arrangement
of baths I prefer what I am accustomed to, but I know that I am
little better than a barbarian. I might, if I had lived in the days when
matches were first invented, have sighed for my flint and steel, but I
hope I should have recognized the superiority of matches. I might,
in the early days of railways, have wished to go on traveling in stage
coaches, but I should have known that steam engines are really
better things than horses at dragging heavy weights for long
distances. Thus I cling to the romance of icy bedrooms and
inconvenient baths, but I acknowledge freely that the Americans
have found the better way and made a step forward along the road
of human progress.
I am not, however, so obstinately conservative as to fail in
appreciating some other points in the American mastery of the
domestic arts. I may long for chilly rooms and remote baths, but I
thoroughly enjoy clean towels. Never have I met so many clean
towels as in America. The English middle-class housekeeper is
behind her French sister in the provision of towels, but the American
is ahead even of France. The American towel is indeed small, the
bath towel particularly small; but that seems to me a trifling matter,
hardly worth mentioning, when the supply is abundant. I would
rather any day have three small apples than one large one, and my
feeling about towels is the same. It is a real pleasure to find a row of
clean ones waiting every time it becomes necessary to wash. It is
certainly a mark of superior civilization to realize the importance of
house linen in daily life. On the other hand, it must be admitted that
the American fails in the matter of sheets. What you get are good,
very good, smooth and cool. You are constantly given clean ones.
But they are not long enough. In England the sheet on your bed
covers your feet completely and leaves a broad flap at the other end
which you can turn over the blankets and tuck under your chin. In
America you must either leave your feet sheetless or be content with
a mere ribbon of linen under your chin, a narrow strip which will
certainly wriggle away during the night. This may not be the fault of
the American housekeeper. There may be some kind of linen
drapers' trust which baffles the efforts of reformers. I have heard
that in one of the western states, where the suffrage has been
granted to women, a law has been passed that all sheets must be
made eighteen inches longer than they usually are in the other
American states. That law is a strong proof of the advantages to the
community of allowing women to vote. It also seems to show that
the American woman, at all events, is alive to the necessity of
reform in this matter of sheets, and is determined to do her best to
remedy a defect in her household management.
The disuse of doors in those parts of the house which are
inhabited during the daytime is a very interesting feature of
American domestic life. The first action of an Englishman when he
enters a room is to shut the door. His first duty when leaving it, if
any one remains inside, is to shut the door. No well-trained servant
ever leaves a door open unless specially requested to do so.
Children, from their very earliest years, are taught to shut doors,
and punished—it is one of the few things for which a child is
systematically punished now—for leaving doors open. An English
mother calls after her child as he leaves the room the single word
"door," or, if she is a very polite and affectionate mother, two words,
"door, dear," or "door, please." An American child would not
understand a request made in this elliptical form. It knows of course
what a door is, just as it knows what a wall is, but it would be
puzzled by the mere utterance of the word, just as an English child
would be if its mother suddenly called to it, "wall," or "wall, dear," or
"wall, please." The American child would wonder what its mother
wanted to say about a door. The English child understands
thoroughly in the same way as we all understand what a dentist
means when he says, "Open, please." It is never our favorite books,
our tightly clenched hands, or our screwed up eyes which he wants
us to open, always our mouths. The word "open" is enough for us.
So the word "door" through a long association of ideas at once
suggests to the English child the idea of shutting it.
An Englishman is thoroughly uncomfortable in a room with the
door open. An American's feeling about shut doors was very well
expressed to me by a lady who had been paying a number of visits
to friends in England.
 "English houses," she said, "always seem to me like hotels. When
you go into them you see nothing except shut doors."
If, after due apologies, you ask why Americans have no doors
between their sitting-rooms, or why, when they have doors, they do
not use them, you always get the same answer.
"Doors," they say, "are necessary in England to keep out
draughts, because the English do not know how to heat their
houses. In our houses all rooms and passages are kept up to an
even temperature and we do not require doors."
This is an intelligible but not the real explanation of this curious
difference between the Americans and the English. There are some
English homes which are centrally heated and in which the
temperature is as even, though rarely as high, as in American
houses; but the Englishmen who live in them still shut doors. An
Englishman would shut the door of the inner chamber of a Turkish
bath if there were a door to shut. In summer, when the days are
very warm, he opens all the windows he can, but he does not sit
with the door open. Temperature has nothing to do with his
fondness for doors. In the same way there are in America some
houses which are not centrally heated, very old-fashioned houses,
but they are as doorless as the others. The fact seems to be not that
doors were disused when central heating became common, but that
central heating was invented so that people who disliked doors could
be warm without them.
I think the lady who told me that the English houses seemed like
hotels to her hinted at the real explanation. The open door is a
symbol of hospitality. It is the expression of sociability of disposition.
The Americans are hospitable and marvelously sociable. They
naturally like to live among open doors or with no doors at all, so
that any one can walk up to him and speak to him without difficulty.
The Englishman, on the other hand, wants to keep other people
away from him, even members of his own family. His dearest desire
is to have some room of his own into which he can shut himself,
where no one has a right to intrude. He calls it his "den," which
means the lurking place of a morose and solitary animal. Rabbits,
which are sociable creatures, live in burrows. Bees, which have
perfected the art of life in community, have hives. The bear has its
den. Every room in an old-fashioned English middle-class house is
really a den, though sometimes, as in the case of the drawing-room,
a den which is meant for the use of several beasts of the same kind
at once. A change is indeed coming slowly over English life in this
matter. The introduction into the middle classes of what is called by
house agents "the lounge hall" is a departure from the "den" theory
of domestic life. The "lounge hall" is properly speaking a public
room. It is available at all hours of the day and no one claims it
specially as his own. It is accessible at once to the stranger who
comes into the house from the street. It is still rare in England, but
where it exists it marks an approach toward American ideals. The
term "living-room" only lately introduced by architects into
descriptions of English houses is another sign that we are becoming
more sociable than we were. It is not simply another name for a
drawing-room. It stands for a new idea, an American idea. The
drawing-room—properly the withdrawing-room—is for the use of
people who want to escape temporarily from family life. The living-
room for those who live it to the full.
In the American house there are no "dens." The American likes
to feel that he is in direct personal contact with the members of his
family and with his guest. It does not annoy him, even if he happen
to be reading a book on economics, to feel that his wife may sit
down beside him or his daughter walk past the back of his chair
humming a tune without his having had any warning that either of
them was at hand. The noise made by a servant collecting knives
and plates after dinner, reaching him through a drawn curtain, does
not disturb his enjoyment of a cigar. The servant is to him a fellow
human being, and the sound of her activities is a pleasant reminder
of the comradeship of man. He too has had his moments of activity
during the day. A guest in an American house is for the time being a
member of the family, not a stranger who, however welcome he may
be, does not presume to intrude upon his host's privacy.
The "porch," as it is called, a striking feature of the American
house, is another evidence of the spirit of sociability. A "porch" is a
glorified and perfected veranda. In summer it is a large open-air
sitting-room. In winter it can, by a common arrangement, be made
into a kind of sun parlor. It has its roof, supported by wooden posts.
When the cold weather comes, frames, like very large window
sashes, are fitted between the posts and a glass-sided room is
made. It is evident that the life in these porches is of a very public
kind. The passer-by, the casual wanderer along the road outside,
sees the American family in its porch, can, if he cares to, note what
each member of the family is doing. The American has no objection
to this publicity. He is not doing anything of which he is the least
ashamed. If other people can see him, he can see them in return.
The arrangement gratifies his instinct for sociability. The Englishman,
on the other hand, hates to be seen. Nothing would induce him to
make a habit of sitting in a veranda. Even in the depths of the
country, when his house is a long way from the road, he fits thin
muslin curtains across the lower part of his windows. These keep out
a good deal of light and in that way are annoying to him, but he
puts up with gloom rather than run any risk, however small, that a
stranger, glancing through the window, might actually see him. Yet
the Englishman commonly leads a blameless life in his own home.
He seldom employs his leisure in any shameful practices. His
casement curtains are simply evidences of an almost morbid love of
privacy.
The first thing an Englishman does when he builds a house is to
surround it with a high wall. This, indeed, is not an English
peculiarity. It prevails all over western Europe. It is a most anti-social
custom and ought to be suppressed by law, because it robs many
people of a great deal of innocent pleasure. The suburbs of Dublin,
to take an example, ought to be very beautiful. There are mountains
to the south and hills to the west and north of the city, all of them
lovely in outline and coloring. There is a wide and beautiful bay on
the east. But the casual wayfarer cannot see either the mountains or
the bay. He must walk between high yellow walls, walls built, I
suppose, round houses; but we can only know this by hearsay. For
the walls hide the houses as well as the view. In Sorrento, which is
even more exquisitely situated than Dublin, you walk for miles and
miles between high walls, white in this case. The only difference