Attached files

file filename
EXCEL - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNFinancial_Report.xls
10-Q - FORM 10-Q - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783e10vq.htm
EX-10.1 - EX-10.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv10w1.htm
EX-10.2 - EX-10.2 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv10w2.htm
EX-32.1 - EX-32.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv32w1.htm
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv31w2.htm
EX-15.1 - EX-15.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv15w1.htm
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv31w1.htm
EX-32.2 - EX-32.2 - KANSAS CITY SOUTHERNc56783exv32w2.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 Company’s 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 Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.
Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company’s circumstances.
Very truly yours,
KPMG LLP
Kansas City, Missouri