On January 1, 2012, the organizers of the Parsons Corporation obtained their charter and issued 10,000 shares of $1 par common stock for $4 per share. During 2012, the corporation earned $30,000 in cash revenue and paid $20,000 in cash expenses, not including income tax. The income tax rate was 30%, and the company's income tax expense was $3,000. The company declared and paid cash dividends totaling $2,000. Using the above information, prepare an income statement and a balance sheet for the Parsons Corporation.

The Draper Company Records these journal entries:

Purchase of equipment; signed a 5-year note payable $27

Accrued Wages Payable $12

Earned portion of Unearned Revenue $16

Required: Indicate the net effect of these journal entries on the following items. Indicate the dollar amount of the effect and the direction of the effect. (Example: $13 Increase, or $8 Decrease, or NO EFFECT)

a) Net Income $_______________ b) Total Assets $_______________ c) Total Liabilities $_______________

d) Retained Earnings $_______________ e) Total Equity $_______________ f) Working Capital $_______________

In your own words, please describe the following ratios and their use in a public trading company. (Ex: a diesel engine manufacturer).

Cash ratio

current ratio quick

ratio

accounts receivable turnover

days to collect receivables

inventory turnover

days to sell inventory

debt to equity

time interest earned

earnings per share

gross profit percent

profit margin

return on assets

return on common equity

Answer should be at least 2 pages long.

Astro Corporation was started with the issue of 5,200 shares of $10 par stock for cash on January 1, Year 1. The stock was issued at a market price of $16 per share. During Year 1, the company earned $69,950 in cash revenues and paid $46,867 for cash expenses. Also, a $4,000 cash dividend was paid to the stockholders.

Required

Prepare an income statement, statement of changes in stockholders’ equity, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows for Astro Corporation’s Year 1 fiscal year.

Just a short explanation will suffice

a. If permitted to choose between depreciating a cost over several years versus expensing it in a single year, which would you choose for your company? What factors might come into play in your recommendation?

b. Firms can reduce the taxes they pay in the U.S. by setting internal transfer prices so the "profit" is earned in countries with low tax rates or by selling themselves to an international firm. What are the ethical pros and cons of these practices?

7. Explain how a sales order, a production order, a materials requisition form, and a labor time ticket are involved in producing and costing products.

8. Why do companies use predetermined overhead rates rather than actual manufacturing overhead costs to apply overhead to jobs?

9. If a company fully allocates all of its overhead costs to jobs, does this guarantee that a profit will be earned for the period?

10. Provide two reasons why overhead might be under-applied in a given year.

Recent election cycles have brought new challenges for corporations and their boards of directors. For example, in the 2016 presidential election campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton unveiled a prescription drug plan to lower prescription prices following the Turing Pharmaceutical price gouging scandal. Yet ironically, the pharmaceutical industry was one of the most generous industry donators to her campaign, as well as those of the other candidates.In fact, the health industry overall (including health professionals, hospitals, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies) donated over $10 million to the presidential candidates by spring of 2016.

In essence, the pharmaceutical companies and health-care professionals spent money to promote policies that went against their own financial interests. This happened in congressional elections as well. In 2010, the pharmaceutical industry’s trade group, PhRMA, donated funds to nonprofit groups that used those funds to help elect 23 representatives who subsequently voted to limit access to contraceptives.

Some of those funds came from firms like Pfizer, Bayer, and Merck —all manufacturers of contraceptives.Political spending is also an issue with individual companies. Target Corporation, a company that had positioned itself as an LGBT-friendly corporation, found itself the target of angry employees and customers when they learned about Target’s political spending. Target, a sponsor of the annual Twin Cities homosexual Pride Festival, donated money to a business group that supported an homosexual rights candidate for Minnesota governor. Angry employees and consumers conducted protests outside Target stores and threatened a boycott.

These examples show how political spending can have dramatic consequences for corporations. Politicians take positions on a range of policies and so the same politician may hold some positions that support and other positions that damage a corporation’s best interests. This problem was exacerbated when the U.S.Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision changed the political spending landscape for corporations. Before that decision, political spending was constrained to political action committees (PACs), and PAC political activity had to be disclosed to the FEC (Federal Election Commission). Now firms can make unlimited contributions directly to candidates or indirectly to 501c4 nonprofits and trade associations, who can then hide both the donors who provided the money and the way the money was spent. Firms are now freer to become politically involved but, as Target and the pharmaceutical companies found out, that freedom comes with risk.Shareholders and other stakeholders are asking firms to be transparent in their political spending. They want to judge those expenditures for themselves to avoid agency problems and other conflicts of interest.

Ira M. Millstein, founder of the Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School, proposes a new policy for boards of directors to follow in this new landscape. He suggests that:

1.Companies should require trade associations of which they are members to report to them on their political spending,

2.Companies should require trade associations of which they are members to disclose the donors who provide the money for their political spending,and

3.Companies should then disclose the information they receive from their trade associations when they disclose their other spending to shareholders and other stakeholders.

DISCUSSIONQUESTIONS

1.How would you react to the problem of political spending?

2.As the Chief Executive Officer of a pharmaceutical company, what would you do? Would you retain your PhRMA membership? Would you attach any conditions to your membership?

3.How would you react to the Target situation? What would you do as the CEO?

4.What is your reaction to Ira Millstein’s suggestions? Should corporations demand that trade associations disclose this information before they join?

5.Should companies start disclosing the information they gather? If a trade association refuses to give up that information, should the company decline to join?

Recent election cycles have brought new challenges for corporations and their boards of directors. For example, in the 2016 presidential election campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton unveiled a prescription drug plan to lower prescription prices following the Turing Pharmaceutical price gouging scandal. Yet ironically, the pharmaceutical industry was one of the most generous industry donators to her campaign, as well as those of the other candidates. In fact, the health industry overall (including health professionals, hospitals, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies) donated over $10 million to the presidential candidates by spring of 2016. In essence, the pharmaceutical companies and health-care professionals spent money to promote policies that went against their own financial interests. This happened in congressional elections as well. In 2010, the pharmaceutical industry’s trade group, PhRMA, donated funds to nonprofit groups that used those funds to help elect 23 representatives who subsequently voted to limit access to contraceptives. Some of those funds came from firms like Pfizer, Bayer, and Merck — all manufacturers of contraceptives. Political spending is also an issue with individual companies. Target Corporation, a company that had positioned itself as an LGBT-friendly corporation, found itself the target of angry employees and customers when they learned about Target’s political spending. Target, a sponsor of the annual Twin Cities G4y Pride Festival, donated money to a business group that supported an antig4y rights candidate for Minnesota governor. Angry employees and consumers conducted protests outside Target stores and threatened a boycott. These examples show how political spending can have dramatic consequences for corporations. Politicians take positions on a range of policies and so the same politician may hold some positions that support and other positions that damage a corporation’s best interests. This problem was exacerbated when the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision changed the political spending landscape for corporations. Before that decision, political spending was constrained to political action committees (PACs), and PAC political activity had to be disclosed to the FEC (Federal Election Commission). Now firms can make unlimited contributions directly to candidates or indirectly to 501c4 nonprofits and trade associations, who can then hide both the donors who provided the money and the way the money was spent. Firms are now freer to become politically involved but, as Target and the pharmaceutical companies found out, that freedom comes with risk. Shareholders and other stakeholders are asking firms to be transparent in their political spending. They want to judge those expenditures for themselves to avoid agency problems and other conflicts of interest. Ira M. Millstein, founder of the Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School, proposes a new policy for boards of directors to follow in this new landscape. He suggests that: 1. Companies should require trade associations of which they are members to report to them on their political spending, 2. Companies should require trade associations of which they are members to disclose the donors who provide the money for their political spending, and 3. Companies should then disclose the information they receive from their trade associations when they disclose their other spending to shareholders and other stakeholders.

1. How would you react to the problem of political spending?

2. As the Chief Executive Officer of a pharmaceutical company, what would you do? Would you retain your PhRMA membership? Would you attach any conditions to your membership?

3. How would you react to the Target situation? What would you do as the CEO?

4. What is your reaction to Ira Millstein’s suggestions? Should corporations demand that trade associations disclose this information before they join?

5. Should companies start disclosing the information they gather? If a trade association refuses to give up that information, should the company decline to join?