(Australian Corporations legislation, 2010) It has already been established that Harry and Hermione are directors of the Griffin Pty Ltd. The courts will first decide whether or not the directors of the company have engaged in insolvent trading and breached s588G. If the company is unable to pay its creditors then it will be insolvent, and the court will have to determine the liability of directors for debts of the insolvent company. Under s95A a company is insolvent when they have the inability to pay all one’s debts as and when they fall due. Under s 588G (1) liability arises if; a.
b. What legal arguments can the individual founders make to support their view that they should not be individually liable to pay the loan? Response Under agency law, the banks lawyers should advise all three individual founders that each holder is considered to be liable based on the signed loan agreement. The bank should also advise the founders that based on evidence that Cogen, Inc., is not considered to be a “De Jure Corporation”, businesses that have been fully and legally chartered in accordance with the provisions and requirements of a given government (Bagley and Savage), their personal assets can be garnished. In fact, the Cogen, Inc., made the executive decision to no longer deal with their initial law firm, Wilson Scott Associates who attempted the actual incorporation, however created a typographical error of naming the corporation Cogene instead of Cogen.
Question CA1-7: Some argue that having various organizations establish accounting principles is wasteful and inefficient. Rather than mandating accounting rules, each company could voluntarily disclose the type of information it considered important. In addition, if an investor wants additional information, the investor could contact the company and pay to receive the additional information desired. Comment on the appropriateness of this viewpoint. I do not believe that this viewpoint is a good idea.
The ex-partners appealed by asserting the following arguments: 1. If the corporation had still be in business, the money paid for the settlement would be considered ordinary business loss, and since they were now liable for the corporation’s liabilities they should also be able to benefit of the same tax treatment. 2. They also argue that in the year of the correction they did not buy or sell anything for such reason capital gains or loses did not apply to them. ISSUES: the following issues arose from the case: 1.
.Owners of the corporation are called shareholders, and shareholders only risk the investment they made in the business, which is the price of their shares of stock. The law also recognizes an LLC as an entity separate from its owners, called members. Therefore, states do not hold the members of the LLC liable for the financial obligations of the business that exceed their direct ownership amounts in the business. 3. Which organizational forms give their owners limited liability?
Question 14-4 What is the purpose of Code Sec. 351 in regard to transfers to corporations? Internal Revenue Code section 351 permits shareholders of a corporation to defer recognition of a gain or loss on the transfer of assets to the corporation. The transfer of property may be made when a new corporation is formed or may reflect additional capital contributions to an existing corporation. Without Section 351, a sole proprietorship or a partnership would have difficulty adopting the corporate form of organization for legal and/or tax purposes because the transfer of appreciated property would constitute a taxable transaction in a recognized gain.
Issue: Did Mrs. Mitchell’s action constitute misconduct so as to disqualify her from unemployment compensation benefits under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A 1953? Rules of Law: The term “misconduct” is not defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin’s 249, 569-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”. The definition states: Misconduct is limited to conduct evoking such willful or wanton behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.
He focused more on the amount of revenue the company made than on the business ethics. Arthur Andersen auditors failed to audit Enron’s financial statements according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and failed to advice the audit committee of conflicts of interest with internal controls. They approved Special Purpose Entities which were used to generate false profits, hide losses, and kept financing off Enron’s consolidated financial statements, and they did not consider the advice of their quality control partner. 3. What was the primary motivation behind the decisions of Arthur Andersen’s audit partners on the Enron audit: the public interest or something else?
DQ 6: What are some of the common unethical behaviors surrounding the revenue and collection cycle and the acquisitions and expenditure cycle? ACC 375 Accounting Ethics and Professional Regulations Purchase here http://chosecourses.com/acc-375-accounting-ethics-and-professional-regulations Product Description ACC 375 Week 1 Assignment Understanding Ethics
This is one of the elements of fraud.) | | | | Theft Act (Incorrect. This is one of the elements of fraud.) | | | | Conversion (Incorrect. This is one of the elements of fraud.)