An oil company consisted of two divisions, on involved in the production and sale of natural gas products and one involved in petrochemical production. The former division owned and operated about ten plants containing extraction units, which took the gas liquids out of the natural gas stream, and fractionators, which separated the gas liquid stream into particular gas liquids. The latter division, which had a variety of petrochemical plants, bought about half of the ethane it used from the former division. The price that the gas products division charged the petrochemical division for ethane was determined by formula that was designed to help the gas products division earn a 12 percent rate of return on its own investment. This formula evolved from negotiations between the former heads of the two divisions, but the present head of the gas products division felt that is should be abandoned because he could get much more for this ethane by selling it to buyers outside the firm. (The formula resulted in a price that was below the current market price of ethane.) On the other hand, the head of the petrochemical division pointed out that the ethane production facilities at the gas products division had been constructed to provide ethane for his division. If you were a consultant to this firm, would you support the recommendation of the head of the gas products division? Research a bit about transfer pricing models, and explain why or why not? Include references.

You are the proud new owner of a local deli, Garibaldo's, situated in a great neighborhood. When you bought the deli, you also received an accounts receivable listing of customers who owed money to the deli along with a shoe box filled with slips of paper that contained the names of the "house account" customers. (These people all had charge privileges with the former owner of Garibaldi's.) The former owner did not like computers or recordkeeping. He said he could spot a good credit risk by "a handshake and a look in the eye. " Bills were not sent to house accounts as the former owner asked these customers to pay "when he needed cash flow and they (the customers) were in a good mood. " This is your first week of business and sales seem slow. Most of the activity comes at the lunch rush and many of your customers hurry in, grab stuff from the deli case and say, "Put it on my tab. " You think you need to make some changes, but you also don't want to make any of the customers mad. Use this grid to jot down your responses to the three questions listed

1. What are Garibaldi's current credit policies?

2. How are accounts receivable recorded on the company books?

3. What three changes would you make to the current way of doing business for Garibaldi's house accounts?

Crane Company has a July 31 fiscal year end and uses a perpetual inventory system. The records of Crane Company show the following data:

After its July 31, 2021, year end, Crane discovered two errors:

Prepare corrected income statements for Crane for the years ended July 31, 2019, 2020, and 2021.
Calculate the incorrect and correct inventory turnover ratios for 2020 and 2021. (Round answers to 2 decimal places, e.g. 52.75.)

The separate condensed balance sheets of Patrick Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sean Corporation, are as follows: BALANCE SHEETS December 31, 2020 Patrick Sean Cash $ 76,000 $ 74,000 Accounts receivable (net) 144,000 22,000 Inventories 84,000 74,000 Plant and equipment (net) 622,000 266,000 Investment in Sean 456,000 - Total assets $ 1,382,000 $ 436,000 Accounts payable 160,000 88,000 Long-term debt 100,000 34,000 Common stock ($10 par) 326,000 50,000 Additional paid-in capital 14,000 Retained earnings 796,000 250,000 Total liabilities and shareholders' equity $ 1,382,000 $ 436,000 Additional Information: On December 31, 2020, Patrick acquired 100 percent of Sean’s voting stock in exchange for $456,000. At the acquisition date, the fair values of Sean’s assets and liabilities equaled their carrying amounts, respectively, except that the fair value of certain items in Sean’s inventory were $22,000 more than their carrying amounts. In the December 31, 2020, consolidated balance sheet of Patrick and its subsidiary, what amount of total assets should be reported?

Ayres Services acquired an asset for $96 million in 2018. The asset is depreciated for financial reporting purposes over four years on a straight-line basis (no residual value). For tax purposes the asset’s cost is depreciated by MACRS. The enacted tax rate is 40%. Amounts for pretax accounting income, depreciation, and taxable income in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 are as follows: ($ in millions) 2018 2019 2020 2021 are as

Required:

Required: Determine (a) the temporary book–tax difference for the depreciable asset and (b) the balance to be reported in the deferred tax liability account. (Leave no cell blank, enter "0" wherever applicable. Show all amounts as positive amounts. Enter your answers in millions rounded to 1 decimal place (i.e., 5,500,000 should be entered as 5.5).)

Anja is an advisor. She uses her own car to travel to various locations to meet clients. She acquired a car on 1 March 2020 for $57,000. The acquisition cost was funded entirely by a loan at an interest rate of 10%. She has determined that the depreciation deduction on the car would be $5,700 for the year. In addition, Anja incurred the following expenses during the year:

• Registration and insurance = $5,000;
• Repairs and maintenance = $300; and
• Oil and fuel costs = $4,100.

For the period 1 March 2020 to 30 June 2020, Anja estimates that the car travelled a total of 12,000 kilometres; 8,000 of which were for business purposes. You may assume that Anja has maintained all necessary records and a logbook. Assume that depreciation has been adjusted for partial year use and the impact of the car limit.

i. Calculate Anja's deduction for car expenses under "cents per kilometre" method 1.5 marks
ii. Calculate Anja's deduction for car expenses under log book method 1.5 marks
iii. Which method is preferable for Anja and why? 2 marks

Ben bates graduated from college six years ago with a finance undergraduate degree. Although he is satisfied with his current job, his goal is to become an investment banker. He feels that an MBA degree would allow hi to achieve this goal. After examining schools, he has narrowed his choice to either Wilton University or Mount Perry College. Although internships are encouraged by both schools, to get class credit for the internship, no salary can be paid. Other than internships, neither school will allow its students to work while enrolled in its MBA program.

Ben currently works at the money management firm of Dewey and Louis. His annual salary at the firm is $53,000 per year, and his salary is expected to increase at 3 percent year until retirement. He is currently 28 years old and expects to work for 38 more years. His current job includes a fully paid health insurance plan, and his current average tax rate is 26 percent. Ben has a saving account with enough money to cover the entire cost of his MBA program.

The Ritter College of Business at Wilton University is one of the top MBA programs in the country. The MBA degree requires two years of full-time enrollment at the university. The annual tuition is $58,000, payable at the beginning of each school year. Books and other supplies are estimated to cost $2,000 per year. Ben expects that after graduation from Wilton, he will receive a job offer for about $87,000 per year, with a $10,000 signing bonus. The salary at this job will increase a 4 percent per year. Because of the higher salary, his average income tax rate will increase to 31 percent.

The Bradley School of Business at Mount Perry College began its MBA program 16 years ago. The Bradley School is smaller and less well known than the Ritter College. Bradley offers an accelerated one-year program, with a tuition cost of $75,000 to be paid upon matriculation. Books and other supplies for the program are expected to cost $4,200. Ben thinks that he will receive an offer of $78,000 per year upon graduation, with an $8,000 signing bonus. The salary at this job will increase at 3.5 percent per year. His average tax rate at this level of income will be 29 percent.

Both schools offer a health insurance plan that will cost $3,000 per year, payable at the beginning of the year. Ben has also found that both schools offer graduate housing. HIs room and board expenses will decrease by $4,000 per year at either school he attends. The appropriate discount rate is 5.5 percent.

5. What initial salary would Ben need to receive to make him indifferent between attending Wilton University and staying in his current position?

6. Suppose, instead of being able to pay cash for his MBA, Ben must borrow the money. The current borrowing rate is 5.4 percent. How would this affect his decision?

XYZ Company recorded the following information related to their inventory
accounts for 2020:

                          January 1, 2020        December 31, 2020
Direct materials               31,000                   50,000
Work in process                38,000                   41,000
Finished goods                 22,000                   34,000

The following information was taken from XYZ Company's accounting records
for 2020:

Sales revenue ...........................................   $630,000
Direct materials purchased ..............................       ?
Depreciation, factory equipment .........................     34,000
Prime costs .............................................    250,000
Utilities (60% for factory; 40% for office building) ....     20,000
Sales commissions .......................................     71,000
Indirect materials ......................................       ?
Depreciation, office equipment ..........................     30,000
Rent, factory building ..................................     56,000
Net income ..............................................     10,000
Direct labor ............................................       ?
Advertising .............................................     68,000
Production supervisor's salary ..........................     74,000

Additional information:

1.  Direct labor comprised 35% of the conversion costs for 2020.

2.  The actual overhead cost for 2020 was equal to the overhead applied
    to production. Thus there was no overhead variance for 2020.

Calculate the direct materials purchased by XYZ Company in 2020.

1) Who is...

Roy Campanella: Described as the second African American player in Major League baseball.

2. Bill Richardson: A former governor of New Mexico, elected in 2003, described as Hispanic.

3. Muhammed Ali: A former heavyweight boxing champion, described as African American.

4. Rachel Dolezal: A former NAACP chapter president, self-described as African American.

2) Is the “racial” category they are usually placed in accurate? Who assigns the categories, i.e., are they self-described categories, those of the general culture, or those of a specific group?

3) Then briefly explain why, why if the current topic of this class is “race,” would these individuals be placed on this list?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Can This Relationship Be Saved?

Written by Mary Anne Doty, Texas A&M University– Commerce

On January 31, 2012, news reports circulated that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had decided to stop funding clinical breast exams through a grant to Planned Parenthood. Initially, Komen cited the congressional investigation of Rep. Cliff Stearns, a conservative legislator who has pushed for abortion restrictions, as the reason for the change in policy barring grants to groups under government investigation. This decision had been made quietly in late November, 2011, with notification to Planned Parenthood in mid- December. As the story broke, Komen found itself in the middle of a controversy. Overnight the organization faced severe criticism (and some praise) as the story mushroomed through television and newspapers, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.1

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has become the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world, investing more than $1.9 billion since 1982. In April 2012 their website listed 124 corporate sponsors from varying organizations, including product brands (American Airlines, Ford Motor Company, Mohawk Flooring, and Yoplait Yogurt), retailers (Belk, Lowe’s, Old Navy, Walgreens), and sports organizations (Dallas Cowboys, Major League Baseball, Ladies PGA).2 In thirty years the brand had reached iconic proportions, beloved by people on all parts of the political spectrum. Charity Navigator, a website that rates nonprofit organizations on the percentage of funds used for the organization’s mission and on transparency, gave Komen a rating of 4/4 stars, with a score of 62/70.3 Supporters have a very personal link with the organization because volunteers have given (or walked) in honor of loved ones affected by breast cancer.

As word trickled out about the Komen decision, supporters and critics began sharing opinions through social networking sites. Former Komen supporters responded with anger and disappointment, many expressing feelings of betrayal. While the Komen grants totaled only $680,000 in 2011, an outpouring of donations to Planned Parenthood raised $3 million in three days, including over 10,000 new donors. As the lines were drawn for supporters of both organizations, most chose Planned Parenthood.4

The negative publicity also drew attention to many of Komen’s practices that had not faced public scrutiny.5 Among the complaints were: (1) the relatively small percentage of Komen funds that go to medical research for a cure (less than 19%); (2) high salaries of the founder and board members (founder Nancy Brinker is reportedly paid over $400,000 annually); (3) large legal expenses incurred from suing other charities defending the words “for the Cure” in their trademark; and (4) making women’s health a political issue.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure did not respond to the social media uproar initially, which angered many of their former supporters.6 Komen received a strong defense from people who disapproved of Planned Parenthood. Many of these were people who previously did not support Komen’s activities because of their grants to Planned Parenthood. In spite of the approval, it was not clear that this segment would replace the funding and other support at risk by the decision.

Corporate sponsors, who generally fear controversial issues, complained that Komen had not informed them of the policy change in advance.7 While none of the sponsors publicly abandoned Susan G. Komen for the Cure in the short term, they made it clear that better communication was expected if the relationship was to thrive.

After four days of intense negative publicity, Komen announced they were reversing their decision and would consider reinstating the Planned Parenthood grants.8 Komen founder Nancy Brinker apologized and announced that in the future groups will only be disqualified from receiving grants when they are under investigations that are “criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

This response was probably a case of “too little, too late” that angered those on both sides of the debate. Planned Parenthood supporters claimed the wording was full of loopholes and not a strong repudiation of the initial decision. Planned Parenthood opponents were angry that the decision was reversed and vowed not to support Komen in the future. The slow response managed to alienate a majority of the public.9

When the decision to defund Planned Parenthood’s grant became public on February 1, 2012, a number of Komen executives and employees resigned in protest, including a medical advisory board member, a health official, and the directors of several large Komen chapters. After the reversal on February 3, public outcry did not fade away. Karen Handel, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs, received most of the blame for the initial decision and for politicizing Komen policies by focusing on abortion politics rather than detecting and treating breast cancer. Handel, a former political candidate who had campaigned on an anti–Planned Parenthood platform, resigned on February 7.10

By February 23, news stories reported Komen hired a consulting firm to assess damage to their brand among supporters.11 The 20-minute survey tested the wording of various apologies and then measured the credibility of the Komen foundation and its leaders, along with the credibility of other public figures. Komen’s problems continued into March when two top executives resigned, the Executive VP and Chief Marketing Officer, as well as the CEO of Komen’s New York City affiliate. As the organization struggled to repair its relationship with supporters, some Komen affiliates reported revenues were substantially lower than in previous campaigns, and participation in the Race for the Cure was also down.

It may take years to determine if Komen can repair its relationships and be restored as a premiere charity brand. The damage of these events affects employees in the form of poor morale, former supporters who are angered by Komen’s initial decision and are not mollified by the reversal of that decision, corporate sponsors who are leery of future controversy, a public that views Susan G. Komen for the Cure as a tarnished organization, and disappointed anti-abortion groups who remain opposed to Komen. Moving forward, it may be time to reexamine their mission. When the organization was founded in 1982, breast cancer was often a death sentence for women (and a few men) because the prognosis was poor when cancer was detected in later stages. Komen raised awareness of breast cancer and spent millions of dollars on public education and breast cancer screening. By any measure, those efforts were a resounding success. It may be time for Komen to focus their strategy on research and treatment (as implied by the trademark name, “…for the Cure”) and save their education campaigns for less informed segments.

Question 1: How did social media impact the complaining behaviors of donors and participants for Susan G. Komen for the Cure activities?

Question 2: What types of complaining behaviors were most apparent? What was the response by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to negative public publicity after their decision to stop funding mammograms in partnership with Planned Parenthood? Would you have responded differently had you been in charge?

Question 3: Officials at Susan G. Komen for the Cure seemed unprepared for the intensity of response that they encountered. How would an understanding of the difference between customer loyalty and customer inertia have prepared the Komen officials for the reactions they experienced?

Question 4: Does the Komen organization demonstrate I characteristics of relationship loyalty with their donors? Why or why not?

Question 5: Many Komen supporters switched their donations to Planned Parenthood after the negative public publicity. Use the concept of share of wallet to explain why this might have happened.