Are disasters extraordinary? Reporting nonrecurring items in the government setting

Xiangpei Chen et al.

Review of Accounting Studies2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-025-09931-2article
FT50AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

We explore reporting nonrecurring gains and losses (extraordinary and special items) among municipalities. We begin by documenting the nature, type, and frequency of reporting, finding that surprisingly few municipalities report items, including those with FEMA disasters and despite GASB standards. Results suggest municipalities with CPA-finance directors are significantly more likely to report items, while less likely reported among those led by unelected bureaucrats (council-manager political governance). Moreover, nonrecurring items are systematically associated with surpluses and deficits in a manner suggesting strategic reporting. Specifically, our evidence suggests officials report income-increasing nonrecurring items to reduce or avoid reporting deficits, and income-decreasing items to reduce surpluses. Strategic reporting is generally magnified when state laws allow direct voter initiatives and reduced when state laws mandate GAAP accounting or external audits. Overall, we conclude that accounting expertise and political governance structures are significant determinants of reporting nonrecurring items, and that some officials strategically report them.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-025-09931-2

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{xiangpei2026,
  title        = {{Are disasters extraordinary? Reporting nonrecurring items in the government setting}},
  author       = {Xiangpei Chen et al.},
  journal      = {Review of Accounting Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-025-09931-2},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Are disasters extraordinary? Reporting nonrecurring items in the government setting

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.