35. If Dinsburry Company concluded that an investment originally classified as a trading security
would now more appropriately be classified as held to maturity, Dinsburry would:
a. Not reclassify the investment, as original classifications are irrevocable.
b. Reclassify the investment as held to maturity and immediately recognize in net income all
unrealized gains and losses that have not already been recognized as of the reclassification
date.
c. Reclassify the investment as held to maturity and treat the fair value as of the date of
reclassification as the investment’s amortized cost basis for future amortization.
. d. Reclassify the investment as held to maturity, but there would be no income effect.
36. If Ziggy Company concluded that an investment originally classified as held to maturity
would now more appropriately be classified as available for sale, Ziggy would:
a. Not reclassify the investment, as original classifications are irrevocable.
b. rReclassify the investment as available for sale and immediately recognize in net income
any unrealized gain or loss on the reclassification date.
c. Reclassify the investment as available for sale and immediately recognize in accumulated
other comprehensive income any unrealized gain or loss on the reclassification date.
d. Need to restate earnings, as the original classification was in error.
37. If Dizbert Company concluded that an investment originally classified as available for sale
would now more appropriately be classified as held to maturity, Dizbert would:
a. Not reclassify the investment, as original classifications are irrevocable.
b. Reclassify the investment as held to maturity and immediately recognize in net income
any unrealized gain or loss on the reclassification date.
c. Reclassify the investment as held to maturity and treat the fair value as of the date of
reclassification as the investment’s amortized cost basis for future amortization.
d. Need to restate earnings, as the original classification was in error.