Part 1 Referencing this week’s readings and lecture, discuss the purpose and components of an effective internal control process.  How do the components of the internal control process assist management with compliance of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002? Part 2 Compare and contrast the differences between preventive, detective, and corrective internal controls in a modern business organization.  Provide a practical example of each type of control. Lecture According to Musvoto (2011), “accounting is regarded as a measurement discipline” (p. 97). Our journey continues with one of the methods for displaying a representational model for the way information is communicated. Probably the most common technique, flowcharts demonstrate the flow of data (Bodnar & Hopwood, 2013, p. 38). Flowcharts use symbols to represent steps in the process of communicating data. Common symbols are used in the communication process so that a consistency exists between the creators of data and readers of the data. During this week’s written assignment, you will select one accounting transaction process and create a flow chart that fully communicates the process of that transaction to the reader. It is important to remember that an organization’s system of internal controls play a dominant role in the transaction process. Because of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), management is responsible for assessing the effectiveness of an organization’s system of internal controls. Internal controls provide specific standards for actions taken within an organization to regulate and direct activities of the organization (Bodnar & Hopwood, 2013). According to Bodnar and Hopwood (2013) there are three primary purposes of internal controls: (a) reliability, (b) effectiveness and (c) compliance. Financial reports, especially those for publicly traded corporations, must be reliable to both internal and external stakeholders. Reliability reduces the risk of inaccurate data providing effective reports that enable the reader to make educated decisions. Finally, compliance with federal and state financial reporting regulations reinforces both reliability and effectiveness of financial reports. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was implemented in response to a number of accounting scandals that occurred at the beginning of the new millennium (Kay & Ovlia, 2014). Congress determined that billions of dollars in net worth was lost because of improper financial reporting creating a loss of public confidence in corporate America. SOX provides several requirements intended to rebuild public confidence and trust in the country’s biggest companies. In addition to Section 404 of SOX, management has other responsibilities related to Sarbanes-Oxley. Section 302 focuses on corporate officer responsibility for financial reporting mandating that the chief executive officer and chief financial officer personally certify that annual financial reports do not contain untrue, misleading, or omitted data or information that could adversely affect the reliability and effectiveness of the final reports (Kay & Ovlia). Chief among the requirements of Section 302 is the maintenance of a system of internal controls intended to ensure the accuracy of financial reporting. Romney and Steinbart (2015) believe that internal controls perform three critical functions: “(a) preventive controls, (b) detective controls and (c) corrective controls” (p. 190). The purpose of SOX, in addition to restoring public confidence and trust, is to create an environment where intentional fraud is prevented and unintentional errors are detected and corrected. IT systems provide an efficient way to fulfill those responsibilities. All of these new regulations and requirements are certified by corporate leadership and verified by outside auditors working in conjunction with one another. The use of flowcharts is one tool that can assist corporate officers in demonstrating that a reliable system of internal controls exists. Another way that companies can establish a reliable system of internal controls was developed by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA). The Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT) framework “consolidates control standards from many different sources into a single framework” (Romney & Steinbart, 2015, p. 192). COBIT focuses on three areas: (a) management creation of common practices within IT environments, (b) user assurance that adequate IT controls are in place and (c) outside audit review and recommendations on IT controls (Romeny & Steinbart, 2015). During this week, you will focus on understanding the importance of internal controls in a business organization, and especially for publicly traded organizations. You will also inter-relate the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the need for a solid system of internal controls and what creates effective controls. Please click on the links below to access a PDF version of the textbook PowerPoint Presentation for the weekly readings. Chapter 2 PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) Chapter 4 PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)

Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in which you explain operation management's role in business today.Include the following:Define operations management.Discuss the key factors that have contributed to the evolution of operations management. Please be sure to include specific events, time and who was involved.Explain how operations management's role is applied to achieving an organization's strategy.Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Post your initial response to one of the following discussion topics (topic 1 or topic 2) Make sure your responses are substantive in nature and that you reference the applicable IRC code provisions and other professional sources used to support your postings. Discussion Topic 1: Consider the role of the United States Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, in international taxation. What do you think are the major obstacles facing the Internal Revenue Service as our markets continue to become more international? As our international markets continue to evolve, how might the Internal Revenue Service's role change? Discussion Topic 2: What are the implications of the Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. on foreign companies with U.S. customers? Do the discussion first with citation and references then response each posted below. Posted 1 As the markets continue to become more international, the IRS also continues to realign and expand its global efforts under its Large Business and International Division. The IRS expects that these efforts will enhance international tax compliance, keeping the primary focus on high-risk issues and cases with greater more efficiency and consistency. The IRS continues to work along with the United States Department of Justice on tax evasion cases involving foreign nations with bank secrecy laws that prevent US from getting information on the taxpayer’s transactions. To avoid the above discussed obstacles, the IRS may be required to sign agreements and treaties on double taxation with tax authorities in other countries which are a host to the United States corporations. Additionally, their IRS needs to investment in efficient modern technology for the close monitoring on the offshore transactions which are main source of tax evasion. Posted 2 The case of South Dakota v. Wayfair considered whether businesses without a physical presence in the state should be required to remit the state tax (AICPA, 2020). This would include companies that have an online presence but no physical location in the state. It was decided that businesses with over 200 orders or $100,000 in in-state sales would qualify for this requirement (2020). This has a number of implications on international businesses. Since the ruling was enacted, many states have made their own ruling. There are 45 states that have created their own stipulations on this issue (Leven & Ruedenburg, 2019). Multinational corporations will have to stay up to date on the different requirements. Sales will have to be tracked in each state and if sales reach the threshold they will have to comply with tax requirements, register to collect sales taxes and “fulfill requests from state Secretaries of State and/or Tax and Revenue Departments” (2019). This increases the work for companies, more regulations and perhaps would require more tax specialists. References AICPA. (2020, March 8). South Dakota V. Wayfair. https://us.aicpa.org/advocacy/state/south-dakota-v-wayfair Levin, L., & Ruedenburg, R. (2019, January 2). International Tax Considerations in Light of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. PKF O’Connor and Davies. https://www.pkfod.com/insights/international-tax-considerations-in-light-of-south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc/ Posted 3 Today’s internet-based e-commerce market is dominating the sales market. The tread will continue and become non-stoppable. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair will expand retailers’ responsibilities to collect sales taxes on out-of-state purchases. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 sales tax decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. [138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)] significantly changed the long-standing physical presence (nexus) rule. In Wayfair, the Court revisited this rule and decided that, given substantial technological changes in the contemporary business environment, particularly today’s internet-based e-commerce market, the ruling articulated in Quill has become outdated. The Court noted that adherence to the nexus requirement imposes a burden on states not receiving sales tax revenues due to out-of-state vendors not having a physical presence in purchasers’ states. Although out-of-state purchasers should comply with their states’ compensating use tax, many purchasers fail to do so, thus allowing revenue collection in the purchasers’ states to suffer. It is noteworthy that Congress had been giving consideration to legislation to address the matter in a coordinated manner had yet to do so when the Wayfair decision was announced. The legal responsibility for sales tax compliance in parity for all vendors including foreign vendors are at a comparative financial disadvantage, and may in fact provide a death blow to some businesses given the cost of compliance. It is impossible for all foreign company to remit the sales tax to each state. We will see how the tax law evolves in the future!