Attached files
file | filename |
---|---|
EXCEL - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | Financial_Report.xls |
10-Q - FORM 10-Q - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783e10vq.htm |
EX-10.1 - EX-10.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv10w1.htm |
EX-10.2 - EX-10.2 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv10w2.htm |
EX-32.1 - EX-32.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv32w1.htm |
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv31w2.htm |
EX-15.1 - EX-15.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv15w1.htm |
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv31w1.htm |
EX-32.2 - EX-32.2 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | c56783exv32w2.htm |
EXHIBIT 18.1
April 27, 2010
Kansas City Southern
Kansas City, Missouri
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have been furnished with a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kansas City
Southern (the Company) for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and have read the Companys
statements contained in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included therein. As stated
in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for rail grinding costs,
from a capitalization method to a direct expense method and states that the
newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances as it eliminates the
subjectivity in determining the period of benefit associated with rail grinding over which to
depreciate the associated capitalized costs. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and
discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which
the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.
We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period
subsequent to December 31, 2009, nor have we audited the information set forth in the
aforementioned Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements; accordingly, we do not express an
opinion concerning the factual information contained therein.
With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been
established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another
acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Companys compliance with the requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.
Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on managements business judgment and planning,
we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Companys circumstances.
Very truly yours,
KPMG LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
Kansas City, Missouri