It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock. Since the tax identity of Smithon corporation would have not ceased, it is not a favorable purchase for Mr. Jones. Ina a case where the tax identity of a firm does not cease not to exist, the tax aspects will remain the same and so will the existing tax schedule. So in this case it would mean that Mr. Jones would not be allowed to change the financial year to end on December 31. The buyer in cases where he can’t change the legal entity is in a non -benefice situation, the buyer is limited to follow the current tax basis on the company’s assets even if the buyer paid more for the
Executive Summary Kenneth Jones, the president of Viscotech, has a handful of regulatory issues to resolve before moving any further with operations. Ideally, the company would have considered SEC regulations before raising the $976,000 in December 1997 from 34 investors through the MIFT pool. Most importantly, Viscotech was desperate for money, so they did not notify the SEC, and accepted money for securities offered under Regulation A, which had not been finalized by the SEC staff. Viscotech advertised the MIFT as a trust, when it appears to be a contract to buy securities at a future date, but we argue that the security vehicle is exempt under Regulation A (see Exhibit 1) for the following reasons. Under the Securities Act of 1933, the MIFT does not automatically fall into the category of exempt securities, so the company must still file a offering statement with the SEC to avoid penalties.
A customer is not liable for the amount of the overdraft if the customer did not sign or benefitted from the proceeds of the action. §4-401(b) This is a difficult scenario, the bank may be forced to re-credit Smiths account the $495. Is the bank without a remedy? According to 4-208: When a check is deposited into a bank and sent through to the bank upon which it is drawn, the depositary bank warrants that the item has not been altered and that it is entitled to enforce the instrument. If there is a problem with the indorsements, or if the check has been altered, the payor bank can bring a claim against the depositary bank for breach of the warranty.
As occurred in this case by the fact that the incorporation would be filed until November 1. In general on pre-incorporation contract, the promoters would be liable on a contract he makes for the benefit of a no-yet-formed. But also, because Goodman informed the managing partners of DDS that he would be forming a corporation, the promoters are not personally liable for pre-incorporation contract where the other party
Jones don’t purchase the stock of Smithton outright. If Mr. Jones did purchase this stock outright it would cause him to acquire the assets, liabilities, and any contractual obligation that are outstanding of Smithton. According to the text Mr. Jones would be completely liable for any existing and future tax liabilities of Smithton. Because the Smithton wouldn’t cease to exist the purchase of stock wouldn’t be recommended for Mr. Jones. Since Smithton’s basis or tax schedule would not be change.
An corporations liability is limited to its assects, so the owner or the shareholders are protected from personal claims unless they commit fraud. Now because Tom did not follow the law of an incorporation by having corporate minutes his company has commited fraud. The court will see a case of fraud and In my opinion will lose the
Paul Ryan’s fairytale budget plan is written by David Stockman. Stockman argues in his perspective on Ryan’s future budget plan. Stockman begins his view towards Republicans government. He blames the Republican Party that runs capitalism for the country’s increased debt. If the big government cuts of taxes for the “job creators,” it will have no positive effect on the economic status, but will decline and collapse eventually.
The objective of an audit of financial statements is to enable the auditor to express an opinion whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in conformity with an identified financial reporting framework of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. In essence, materiality should function as a cut-off threshold to determine the nature of the audit testing. Auditors should not reveal its materiality level to clients because clients might take advantage of it to deceive the auditors and make its financial statement better. When the Deloitte auditors are suspicious of certain accounts, they not only can’t reveal it but also make more substantive investigation into these accounts. Question 4: Existence: the
If this was not the case, Congress would not have enforced the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In 2002, the financial scandals that occurred by multiple corporations proved that the accounting profession was in dire need of some regulation by the government. I predict that corporate fraud will remain the same based on the research produced during the writing process for this assignment. There is no fool proof way to completely diminish financial fraud or to protect investors. As people as a whole have proven time and time again, there are rules and laws and there are people whom break those rules and laws for personal gain.
The Foreign Corrupt Process Act focus is on the purpose of the payment as an alternative of the exact functions of the officials receiving offer, the payment or promise of payment, and there are exceptions to the anti-bribery stipulation for "facilitating payments for routine governmental action"; the last is ‘Business Purpose Test' Here the Foreign Corrupt Process Act does not allow payments made in order to help the firm in retaining or obtaining business with or for directing business to, any person. The Department of Justice interprets retaining business broadly such that the term encompasses more than award or renewal of a contract. Notice that the business to be retained or obtained does not need being with a foreign government instrumentality. The Foreign Corrupt Process Act prohibits corrupt payments through intermediaries says it is illegal to make a disbursement of cash to a third individual, all through knowing that a portion or all of the payment will go indirectly or directly to a foreign official. The term "knowing" included conscious disregard and intentional ignorance.