Choice "d" is correct. A change from the cost method (less than 20% ownership) to the equity method
(20% or more ownership or a Board seat or other significant influence) of accounting for investment in an
investee is neither an accounting change nor an accounting error. If it is not an accounting change, it
cannot be a change in accounting principle or a change in accounting estimate since those two types of
changes are both accounting changes.
There is a considerable amount of controversy on this particular answer. Some people think that this
change is a change in accounting principle (something certainly changed, but was it the accounting
principle?), and others think it is a change in accounting entity (which is not one of the available answers;
anyway, did the accounting entity actually change or is it the same entity accounted for differently?).
Under SFAS No. 154, a change in accounting principle is treated retrospectively and a change in
accounting entity is treated retrospectively.
This kind of change (cost to equity) has never been specifically identified in any accounting literature as
either a change in accounting principle or a change in accounting entity. The words "cost method" were
never mentioned in APB 20 (other than the full cost method for oil & gas companies, which is an entirely
different subject), nor was it mentioned in SFAS No. 154. It was, however, discussed in APB 18 (the
pronouncement for the equity method) in Paragraph 19m (bold added): "An investment in common stock
of an investee that was previously accounted for on other than the equity method may become qualified
for use of the equity method by an increase in the level of ownership described in paragraph 17 (i.e.,
acquisition of additional voting stock by the investor, acquisition or retirement of voting stock by the
investee, or other transactions). When an investment qualifies for use of the equity method, the investor
should adopt the equity method of accounting. The investment, results of operations (current and prior
periods presented), and retained earnings of the investor should be adjusted retroactively in a manner
consistent with the accounting for a step-by-step acquisition of a subsidiary."
What does all this mean? It means that, when there is a change in the percentage of ownership that
changes accounting from the cost method to the equity method, the change is treated retroactively (just
like changes in accounting entity used to be treated, although they are now treated retrospectively). It
does not say that the change is a change in accounting principle or anything else. Nothing in SFAS
No.154 changed this treatment. So all this still makes Choice "d" correct. This whole issue might easily be
considered to be splitting hairs, at the very least. Some questions on the CPA exam are just that way.
Most are not.

Choice "a" is correct, Yes - Yes. A material transaction that is "infrequent in occurrence" but not "unusual
in nature" should be presented separately as a component of "income from continuing operations" when
the transaction results in a gain or loss.

Choice "b" is correct. Assets of the North American segment exceed 10% combined assets of all
operating segments.
Choice "a" is incorrect. Corporate headquarters in not considered a segment.
Choice "c" is incorrect. The South American segment does not meet any of the 10% minimums (Revenue,
P&L or Assets).
Choice "d" is incorrect. Eastern Europe segment does not report to the chief operating officer.

Choice "b" is correct. Change in the computation of warranty costs from 3% of sales to 1% of sales is a
change in accounting estimate.

Choice "d" is correct. An asset provides future benefits.
Rule: According to the FASB conceptual framework, assets are probable future economic benefits
obtained or controlled by a particular entity as a result of past transactions or events.