Financial Accounting Ethics Business Plan Sample

The Tax Partner was against amending the prior year’s tax return because the client in question had not consented to it. Tax practitioners are precluded from unilaterally amending previously erroneous tax returns. Client’s consent and instructions must be sought first.
There are a couple of ethical issues that arise in the case. To begin with, the fact that John was assigned the tax of preparing the tax return yet he was not the one who was given instructions directly by the client raises ethical concerns. Moreover, John’s unwarranted disclosure of information regarding the previous year’s tax return to his Tax Partner is ethically questionable.
Legal consequences are manifested in the situation. The firm that prepared the tax return of the previous year is potentially liable under professional negligence. Besides, the error puts continued representation of the client by John, while cognizant of the error in the tax return of the prior year in a precarious position legally speaking.
John’s course of action ought to be to advise the client on the need to rectify the error in the tax return of the previous year. His ethical obligation does not end with informing the client of the existence of the said error.
The correspondences should be implemented in writing. In the event that the client rejects the advice to amend the tax return in question, John should then consider the question of withdrawing from representing the client. The extent to which the error affects the current tax return is informative in deciding whether to withdraw or not.
In my view, the court’s decision was not fair. This view is predicated on the fact that the court only took into account the private cost benefit analysis as opposed to economic cost benefit analysis. As a result, it disregarded the harms brought about by the pollution in question on other sectors other than the residents themselves. The pollution negatively affected other aspects of the ecosystem besides the residents. Had the court considered the economic cost benefit analysis, it would have arrived at a decision that would have made the company to internalize all the negative externalities associated with the pollution. Accordingly, the compensatory award ought to have gone beyond the one-time fee to be paid for ongoing harms.
Moreover, it is illogical for the court to rule that the residents be paid a one-time fee yet the harms brought about by the pollution were ongoing. It begs the question, what about the negative effects on the health of people who were going to be born after the decision? Will they sue for their own compensation as well? Besides, calculating the compensation on the basis of “fair market price if the company was inclined and able to rent their property” does not take into account the future cost of pollution. Therefore, the court’s decision is unfair when viewed through the lenses of both external cost of pollution and sustainability of the decision.
The approach is informed by the fact that there is no point in appeasing the Board of Directors by finding them candidates who would see the company to its doom. Although our firm will have made a fortune out of it in the short run, it will come to bite us in the future when it comes out that the candidate that our firm identified was responsible for the underperformance of the company. This will not only cripple the credibility of the kind of candidates that our firm recommends to our clients but also jeopardize the competiveness of our firm in the executive search market. Although our firm will not be held liable for the underperformance of the president in question, choosing the said president under the circumstances amounts to gross violation of our ethical obligations to our clients as a firm. As a result, my firm would rather offend the Board of Directors of one large as of principle and lose now but be able to win in the future.
The administrators of UCSD ought to take disciplinary measures against Quincy Troupe. These will range from revocation of the titles and privileges accorded to him by the university to sacking him if he does not voluntarily resign. Additionally, they should inform the law enforcement authorities about the revelation. However, the university ought to express their reservations regarding prosecution and publicity of the case.
Troupe ought to resign. Besides, he should report himself to the law enforcement authorities and take a plea deal that would ensure that the matter does not come into public lime light.
The factors that ought to be considered in this particular case are the implication of publicity of Troupe’s questionable academic credentials on the credibility of graduates taught and supervised by him. Besides, the UCSD ought to consider the fact that the case will expose the university to criticism for not having exercised due diligence in hiring a lecturer who turned out to be a fraud.
The brand of my company has acquired good will owing to the fact that products that it supplies to the market are reputed for good quality coupled with good customer service associated with my company. As a result, there is a legitimate expectation on my prospective customers that when they choose my brand, they will be purchasing goods of certain quality. Therefore, I will inform the consumers about the discrepancy of the specific product. This course of action will not only amount to a discharge of my ethical duties to consumers of my products but will also go a long way in reinforcing the confidence that the market has in my products and customer service.
Besides, ethical wisdom demands that I discount the prices to reflect the discrepancy in question. Discounting is informed by the need not to reap where I did not scatter. The need to discount the prices complements the choice to make the customers aware of the discrepancy.
I will tell the employees. The facts of the question do not reveal any crucial consequences that come with letting the employees know about the discrepancy. If anything, it will motivate them to work on improving the quality in order to restore the standards.
I will have no problem using the cement on foundations for my own house. This is due to the fact that the cement in question is way above the industry standards and the standards required by the building codes. However, the choice to use cement of better quality will be predicated on my own preferences and ability to pay for the high quality.
Matt ought to accept Harrington’s offer. Even though he loves his family so much that he would rather have his children miss out of college than pay for their college education out of a business venture that jeopardizes the ability of the rest of the community members to meet their own needs, his refusal to take the offer will not bar Wall Mart from using other means to establish a local store in Wichita. Matt, like any other human being can only live once. As such, he should live his life to the fullest without undue enslavement to century-old ventures and traditions of his grandparents.
I will not give him a “yes”. If I do, I will be exposing myself to prosecution for insider trading.
I will only tell him that the stocks are his and if he needs the money there is nothing barring him from selling some of the stocks to meet his living expenses. This way, I would have absolved myself of the guilt of not having kept silent and watch the old man lose considerable portion of his dependable income without making statements that could be interpreted as amounting to insider trading.
If I tell the old man to sell his stocks my company will be negatively affected. There is no guarantee that the old man will not inform other people who would in turn sell their stocks hence watering down the value of my company’s stocks.
More so, it will have serious implications o my job. If the lick is successfully traced back to me, I will definitely lose my job. Besides I stand the chance of being prosecuted for insider trading and related offences.
The Texas statute impinges on the freedom of speech. As such, it is a bad law in so far as it prohibits making of claims that jeopardizes the financial interests of farmers in their produce.
Yes. Oprah Winfrey does have standards governing her ethical conduct in such issues. To begin with, she ought to caution her guests against making claims that may contravene the said laws. Most importantly, she should be able to put her guests on the spot to substantiate their claims with scientific evidence.
The managers of the plastic chair production line ought not to adopt the use of low quality materials in production of their chairs. Instead, they should explore other cost-cutting means of production. For instance, they should lay off non-essential employees.
It is not ethical to sell products that pose danger to the consumers in a bid to save jobs. This approach may be counterproductive in the future as it will expose the company to law suits should the consumers be injured by the use of the product. The duty to supply the consumers with safe products outweighs the duty of the company to provide jobs for its employees.
Being one of the assemblers in the said product line, I would raise the issue with my superiors as my first course of action. If they do not take any action to address the problem, ethical wisdom demands that I report the issue to the relevant authorities.