Attached files
file | filename |
---|---|
10-Q - FORM 10-Q - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450e10vq.htm |
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450exv31w1.htm |
EX-32.2 - EX-32.2 - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450exv32w2.htm |
EX-10.2 - EX-10.2 - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450exv10w2.htm |
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450exv31w2.htm |
EX-10.1 - EX-10.1 - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450exv10w1.htm |
EX-32.1 - EX-32.1 - Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. | c57450exv32w1.htm |
Exhibit 18.1
April 27, 2010
Kansas City Southern de Mexico
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 de Mexico (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,
Kansas City, Missouri