Jakobsen, K. (2004). If work doesn’t work: How to enable occupational justice. Journal of Occupational Science, 11, 125-134.

How does this occupational injustice affect the participants ability to choose and participate in occupations? What kinds of occupations are affected?

A certain forum reported that in a survey of 2004 American adults, 28% said they believed in astrology.

(a) Calculate a confidence interval at the 99% confidence level for the proportion of all adult Americans who believe in astrology. (Round your answers to three decimal places.) ,

1. So far there is no multilateral level investment agreement (MIA), despite attempts from OECD, UN, and other international institutions. What do you think are the key reasons for the failure of MIA?   Explain the major reasons (read Young and Tavares, 2004).

In Enron scandal in 2002, The question is for Powers report on Enron:

1. Description of the related party transactions reported on by Arthur Andersen & Co.

2. Description and evaluation of the flaw in the accounting firm's logic.

3. Proposed checklist for special projects performed by external auditors to limit errors and risks.

4. Proposed rules or laws to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

The Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act was passed in 2002 as a result of corporate scandals and in as attempt to regain public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Two random samples of 1015 executives were surveyed and asked their opinion about accounting practices in both 2000 and in 2006. The table below summarizes all 2030 responses to the question, “Which of the following do you consider most critical to establishing ethical and legal accounting and reporting practices?” Did the distribution of responses differ from 2000 to 2006?

1. Determine and state whether this is a test of Goodness of Fit, a test of homogeneity or a test of association (or independence). Include in your statement a justification for your choice.
2. Write the correct Null and Alternate Hypotheses for the test
3. Perform the test using Minitab (remember to include the output in your Word document)
4. State your decision, and why you made this choice
5. Give a conclusion in the context of the problem. If you make the decision to reject the null hypothesis, be sure to comment on the bar chart.

The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act was enacted in 2002 for companies in the private sector as a result of the Enron and other scandals. However, it does not apply to government. Should SOX-like provisions be required for the federal government? Has there been any move in this direction? Why or why not?

Mr. Hilal joined bank Muscat in the IT department on the 20^th of March 2002. As per the agreement with the employer, he is promised a starting basic pay of OMR 650 per month along with other allowances. His gross starting salary adding all allowances amounts to OMR 750. As per the terms and conditions in the contract, he is entitled for an increment (increment added to basic salary) after the completion of one year service. He retired from service on 15^th March 2020 when he was drawing a gross salary of OMR 1850 including all allowances OMR 350.

1)You are required to calculate the gratuity payable to Mr. Hilal.  

Please answer the following question:

Did TBC and Saddam Hussein form a valid contract? (Hint: Evaluate each of the elements of a valid contract and determine whether it was satisfied)

Review the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the accounting scandals in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Enron, WorldCom, etc.)BELOW:

Identify the provisions that you believe made the most significant impact. What other provisions could have been included in the Act to strengthen the responsible stewardship and integrity of the accounting profession? Conversely, what existing provisions in the Act do you believe (if any) are unnecessary or over-regulate the profession?

As a result of corporate accounting scandals, such as those at Enron and WorldCom, the U.S. Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The purpose of SOX is to restore trust in publicly traded corporations, their management, their financial statements, and their auditors. SOX enhances internal control and financial reporting requirements and establishes new regulatory requirements for publicly traded companies and their independent auditors. Publicly traded companies have spent millions of dollars upgrading their internal controls and accounting systems to comply with SOX regulations.

As shown in Exhibit 1-10, SOX requires the company’s CEO and CFO to assume responsibility for their company’s financial statements and disclosures. The CEO and CFO must certify that the financial statements and disclosures fairly present, in all material respects, the operations and financial condition of the company. Additionally, they must accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. The company must have its internal controls and financial reporting procedures assessed annually.

Some Important Features of SOX

SOX also requires audit committee members to be independent; that is, they may not receive any consulting or advisory fees from the company other than for their service on the board of directors. In addition, at least one of the members should be a financial expert. The audit committee oversees not only the internal audit function but also the company’s audit by independent CPAs.

To ensure that CPA firms maintain independence from their client company, SOX does not allow CPA firms to provide certain nonaudit services (such as bookkeeping and financial information systems design) to companies during the same period of time in which they are providing audit services. If a company wants to obtain such services from a CPA firm, it must hire a different firm to do the nonaudit work. Tax services may be provided by the same CPA firm if pre-approved by the audit committee. The audit partner must rotate off the audit engagement every five years, and the audit firm must undergo quality reviews every one to three years.

SOX also increases the penalties for white-collar crimes such as corporate fraud. These penalties include both monetary fines and substantial imprisonment. For example, knowingly destroying or creating documents to “impede, obstruct, or influence” any federal investigation can result in up to 20 years of imprisonment.

SOX also contains a “clawback” provision in which previously paid CEO’s and CFO’s incentive-based compensation can be recovered if the financial statements were misstated due to misconduct. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 further strengthens the clawback rules, such that firms must recover all incentive compensation paid to any current or former executive, in the three years preceding the restatement, if that compensation would not have been paid under the restated financial statements. In other words, executives will not be allowed to profit from misstated financial statements, even if the misstatement was not due to misconduct.

Review the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the accounting scandals in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Enron, WorldCom, etc.)BELOW:

List the existing provisions in the Act do you believe (if any) are unnecessary or over-regulate the profession?

As a result of corporate accounting scandals, such as those at Enron and WorldCom, the U.S. Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The purpose of SOX is to restore trust in publicly traded corporations, their management, their financial statements, and their auditors. SOX enhances internal control and financial reporting requirements and establishes new regulatory requirements for publicly traded companies and their independent auditors. Publicly traded companies have spent millions of dollars upgrading their internal controls and accounting systems to comply with SOX regulations. As shown in Exhibit 1-10, SOX requires the company’s CEO and CFO to assume responsibility for their company’s financial statements and disclosures. The CEO and CFO must certify that the financial statements and disclosures fairly present, in all material respects, the operations and financial condition of the company. Additionally, they must accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. The company must have its internal controls and financial reporting procedures assessed annually. Some Important Features of SOX SOX also requires audit committee members to be independent; that is, they may not receive any consulting or advisory fees from the company other than for their service on the board of directors. In addition, at least one of the members should be a financial expert. The audit committee oversees not only the internal audit function but also the company’s audit by independent CPAs. To ensure that CPA firms maintain independence from their client company, SOX does not allow CPA firms to provide certain nonaudit services (such as bookkeeping and financial information systems design) to companies during the same period of time in which they are providing audit services. If a company wants to obtain such services from a CPA firm, it must hire a different firm to do the nonaudit work. Tax services may be provided by the same CPA firm if pre-approved by the audit committee. The audit partner must rotate off the audit engagement every five years, and the audit firm must undergo quality reviews every one to three years. SOX also increases the penalties for white-collar crimes such as corporate fraud. These penalties include both monetary fines and substantial imprisonment. For example, knowingly destroying or creating documents to “impede, obstruct, or influence” any federal investigation can result in up to 20 years of imprisonment. SOX also contains a “clawback” provision in which previously paid CEO’s and CFO’s incentive-based compensation can be recovered if the financial statements were misstated due to misconduct. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 further strengthens the clawback rules, such that firms must recover all incentive compensation paid to any current or former executive, in the three years preceding the restatement, if that compensation would not have been paid under the restated financial statements. In other words, executives will not be allowed to profit from misstated financial statements, even if the misstatement was not due to misconduct.