Property and equipment are recorded at cost. Expenditures made to maintain such assets in their original operating condition are expensed as incurred, and improvements and upgrades are generally capitalized. Depreciation is computed on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The unit method is used for all individual assets.

Effective January 1, 2013, the Partnership changed its method of depreciation for the group of assets acquired as a whole in 1983, as well as for the groups of like assets of each subsequent business acquisition from the composite method to the unit method.

Historically, the Partnership had used the composite depreciation method for land improvements, buildings, rides and equipment for the group of assets acquired as a whole in 1983, as well as for the group of like assets of each subsequent business acquisition. The unit method was only used for all individual assets purchased. Under the composite depreciation method, assets with similar estimated lives are grouped together and the several pools of assets are depreciated on an aggregate basis. No gain or loss is recognized on normal retirements of composite assets. Instead, the net book value of a retired asset reduces accumulated depreciation for the composite group. Unusual retirements of composite assets could result in the recognition of a gain or loss. Under the unit method of depreciation, individual assets are depreciated over their estimated useful lives, with gains and losses on all asset retirements recognized currently in income.

In order to improve comparability and enhance the level of precision associated with allocating historical cost, the Partnership had determined that it was preferable to change from the composite method of depreciation to the unit method of depreciation for all assets. The Partnership believes that pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, changing from the composite method of depreciation to the unit method of depreciation is a change in accounting estimate that is effected by a change in accounting principle, which should be accounted for prospectively. This prospective application resulted in the discontinuance of the composite method of depreciation for all prior acquisitions with the existing net book value of each composite pool allocated to the remaining individual assets (units) in that pool with each unit assigned an appropriate remaining useful life on an individual unit basis. Assigning a useful life to each unit in the various composite pools had an insignificant effect on the weighted average useful lives of all assets that were previously accounted for under the composite method.

The change in depreciation method had an immaterial impact on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarter ended June 30,September 29, 2013. Future asset retirements could have a material impact on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in the periods such items occur.

Long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment upon the occurrence of events or changes in circumstances that would indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. In order to determine if an asset has been impaired, assets are grouped and tested at the lowest level for which identifiable, independent cash flows are available. A significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of impairment has occurred. Such indicators may include, among others: a significant decline in expected future cash flows; a sustained, significant decline in equity price and market capitalization; a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate; unanticipated competition; and slower growth rates. Any adverse change in these factors could have a significant impact on the recoverability of these assets and could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In accordance with the applicable accounting rules, goodwill is not amortized, but, along with indefinite-lived trade-names, is evaluated for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if indicators of impairment exist. The Partnership's annual testing date is December 31.

The Partnership tested goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangibles for impairment on December 31, 2012 and no impairment was indicated. In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other,” which gives an entity the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the current two-step goodwill impairment test. If an entity believes, as a result of its qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, the two-step goodwill impairment test is required. WeThe Partnership adopted this guidance during the first quarter of 2012 and it did not impact the Partnership'sits consolidated financial statements.

In July 2012, the FASB issued ASU 2012-02, “Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment,” which allows an entity the option to first assess qualitatively whether it is more-likely-than-not that an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired, thus necessitating that it perform the quantitative impairment test. An entity is not required to calculate the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset and perform the quantitative impairment test unless the entity determines that it is more likely than not that the asset is impaired. The revised standard is effective for annual impairment testing performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, however early adoption was permitted. WeThe Partnership adopted this guidance during the third quarter of 2012 and it did not impact the Partnership'sits consolidated financial statements.

Derivative financial instruments are used within the Partnership’s overall risk management program to manage certain interest rate and foreign currency risks. By utilizing a derivative instrument to hedge our exposure to LIBOR rate changes, the Partnership is exposed to credit risk. Credit risk is the failure of the counterparty to perform under the terms of the derivative contract. To mitigate this risk, hedging instruments are placed with a counterparty that the Partnership believes poses minimal credit risk.

The Partnership does not use derivative financial instruments for trading purposes.