- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
Sir Insanity.
Sir Insanity.-
Posts
-
Sir Insanity
- Topics: 28
- Replies: 44
- ☆☆
Sup guys,
Help me out?Sales Volume Variance is the same whether absorption or marginal costing is used. T or F?
I *think* it’s True but I’m not sure. What are your POV’s?
Any and every help is appreciated. Thanks.
HazE
- Topics: 11
- Replies: 84
- ☆☆
It would be false. In marginal costing we cost it at standard CONTRIBUTION per unit
Sir Insanity
- Topics: 28
- Replies: 44
- ☆☆
@hazzy said:
It would be false. In marginal costing we cost it at standard CONTRIBUTION per unitThat makes sense… except isn’t sales volume measured in units, per se? So won’t the vol. variance be in terms of units?
And thanks for replying.HazE
- Topics: 11
- Replies: 84
- ☆☆
Yeah but you have to give the cost of it…quantity wise it will be same but we value it differently…Because when we talk about sales we wanna know the dollar amount…not just the quantity
Sir Insanity
- Topics: 28
- Replies: 44
- ☆☆
@hazzy said:
Yeah but you have to give the cost of it…quantity wise it will be same but we value it differently…Because when we talk about sales we wanna know the dollar amount…not just the quantityOh okay I got it now.
So basically, it’s UnitsSold*x/Unit, where ‘x’ is contribution for MC and gross profit for AC? Is that it?
Thanks a lot dude!
Sir Insanity
HazE
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.