AICPA Code of Professional Conduct Violations

timer Asked: Nov 29th, 2014

Question description

"AICPA Code of Professional Conduct Violations" Please respond to the following:

1.  From the e-Activity, discuss one violation of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct leading to a disciplinary action. Explore the risks that relationships or circumstances played in the failure of the CPA to comply with the rules of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct leading up to the violation. 

2.  Examine current safeguards available to reduce the risks of the violation you identified.  Discuss the specific safeguard you would recommend to reduce risks if confronted with a similar situation.

**Week 8 e-activity

  • Use the Internet to research at least two current cases involving violations of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Be prepared to discuss.
"IBM and Google ethical question"
3.  From the case study (FOUND BELOW), explain whether or not you agree with IBM’s cost-reduction decisions regarding both the pension plan overtime for employees and the acquisition of a competitor to protect IBM’s competitive position in the mainframe business. Examine how IBM’s actions contradict its value statement.
4.  Support or critique Google’s actions, as identified in the situations within the case study. Discuss the impact of Google’s actions on its reputation as an ethical and socially responsible firm.

All i need is a few distinct paragraphs for each of the 4 questions.  Nothing too profound (approx. 250 words per question).  Please also provide APA style references for any cited works that you use

Case Study for the IBM and Google questions:

IBM and Google are two of the most successful firms in the history of business. Since

the demise of Bell Laboratories following the breakup of AT&T, IBM has had the world’s

leading corporate research labs. Five IBM scientists have won Nobel Prizes in physics

(compared with 12 from Bell Labs), and every year since at least 1992 IBM employees

have been granted more patents than employees at any other firm in the world.1 More

importantly, some technology analysts consider IBM’s research more fundamental,

yet more practical, and its patents more valuable, than those of most competitors.

Google was founded in 1998 by two Stanford computer science graduate students,

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, at the start of the Internet boom. Google quickly  became

the world’s dominant search engine and gained widespread fame for its corporate

culture. Google offered employees free healthy lunches and dinners, and snack

 tables were spread throughout the firm’s offices. Google buildings included space for

bicycles, pets, pool and foosball tables, volleyball courts, and gyms. The firm offered

employees free massages, meditation classes, and yoga sessions. Employees were

encouraged to spend 20% of their time at work on projects of their choice, which led

to innovative developments and motivated employees.

profitability and soon transformed IBM from primarily a computer manufacturer into a

firm that provided information technology (IT) services throughout the world. In the mid-

1990s, data processing became so complex that many large organizations outsourced

their entire IT departments. IBM was one of the few firms in the world large enough and

skilled enough to manage those projects. That work was highly profitable, but by the late

1990s IBM’s service operations faced severe competition, first from large Indian IT firms

such as Infosys Technologies and Wipro Limited and then from Hewlett Packard.

For at least the past 40 years IBM has been one of the world’s most respected com-

panies. However, because it faced various competitive challenges from Microsoft,

Indian IT firms, and Hewlett Packard, IBM was forced to take actions to reduce costs,

and many of those actions were widely criticized (see below). In July 2003, IBM in-

vited all 319,000 of its employees throughout the world to engage in an open “values

jam” on its global intranet. Tens of thousands of employees offered comments about

the company over a three-day period. That discussion produced IBM’s current corpo-

rate value statement (Exhibit 2).5 According to that value statement, employees were

brutally honest, and some of what they wrote was painful for management to read.

Exhibit 2 states that IBM’s stock price must increase by 10% before IBM’s 300 most

senior executives benefit from their employee stock options. In addition, the executives

must first invest their own funds in IBM stock before they can buy stock under IBM’s

executive stock option plan. The corporate values statement mentions that this require-

ment is unique in the computer industry and possibly in all of U.S. business. Although

IBM’s value statement is more restrictive than most values statements for U.S. compa-

nies, IBM has received criticism for some of its actions during the past 10 years.

Pension dispute

Like most large companies founded prior to the 1990s, IBM included a defined ben-

efit pension plan for all employees as part of its compensation package.6 IBM termi-

nated its defined benefit pension plan in 1999 and transferred all employees to a cash

balance pension plan.7 Employees filed a class action lawsuit against IBM claiming

the plan discriminated against older workers. In 2003, a lower court ruled that IBM’s

revised pension plan did discriminate against older employees. IBM appealed the

case, but to limit its maximum exposure it agreed to pay plaintiffs $320 million. If IBM

lost on appeal, it agreed to pay an additional $1.4 billion (i.e., plaintiffs agreed to a

$1.4 billion additional payment as a cap). In 2007, IBM won its appeal, although the

$320 million payment was not returned because of the contractual agreement.

Google’s 2008 revenues increased by 31% from 2007 but, partially because of a

$1.1 billion impairment charge for Clearwire and AOL equity investments, Google’s

2008 operating income exceeded 2007 operating income by only 3.2%.

Revenues for the first three quarters of 2009 were only 5.5% higher than the first three

quarters of 2008. However, because of firm-wide cost cuts, including Google’s first

ever employee count reduction (by only 2.3%), Google’s operating income before tax

 increased by 22%. Like IBM, Google has recently been criticized for some of its actions.

Dual classes of stock

Google first issued stock to the public in August 2004. Google separated its equity

ownership into two classes of stock. The A shares, which were sold to the public, have

one vote per share; the B shares, primarily owned by cofounders Sergey Brin and

Larry Page—and CEO Eric Schmidt—have 10 votes per share. Dual class  common

stock has been relatively common in the newspaper industry (The New York Times

and, prior to its acquisition by News Corp, Dow Jones/The Wall Street Journal). It has

also been used by some family-controlled firms, such as Molex Inc.

Google’s founders stated that they wanted to control the firm to avoid quarterly

earnings pressure from security analysts.14 In 2006, shareholders proposed that

Google eliminate its two classes of stock, but the founders rejected that proposal.

Many Google competitors worry that this will give Google a significant advantage

in targeting its advertising. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and various

other organizations objected to the settlement because of privacy concerns. They

worry Google Books will give Google unique insight into the reading habits of those

who download books.

The U.S. Department of Justice, several European countries, and some members

of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are concerned that this legal settle-

ment circumvents U.S. and foreign government copyright laws. The U.S. DOJ stated

that the settlement would provide benefits to the public but also raises significant

issues regarding class action, copyright, and antitrust laws.17

The agreement has been widely criticized throughout Europe, including in a

speech by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said the German government

strongly opposed Google Books, a project so secret that Google will not allow any-

one to observe how it scans books.18

In response, Google cofounder Sergey Brin published an editorial, “A Library to

Last Forever,” in The New York Times on October 8, 2009.19 Mr. Brin passionately

argued that Google Books is primarily an altruistic effort by Google to make books

available to the public that would otherwise be lost forever. He strongly defended

the  settlement because it allows payment to authors who would otherwise receive

 nothing for their work and because it allows any other company an equal  opportunity

to scan orphan books.

On December 18, 2009, a French court ruled that Google Books violates France’s

copyright laws. A French court fined Google €300,000 ($431,000), plus €10,000

($14,300) per day until it stops providing viewers with portions of the scanned books.

The lawsuit, brought by French publishing houses, accused Google of offering free

searchable portions of copyrighted books. In doing so, Google earns advertising rev-

enues without adequately compensating copyright holders.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Studypool Tutor
School: UT Austin
Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors