1. Pam earned a salary of $89,438 working as a CPA for a small firm. Pam recently was sickened by eating spoiled peanut butter. She successfully sued the manufacturer for her medical bills ($4380), her emotional distress ($8700—she now fears peanut butter), and punitive damages ($51,000). What amount must Pam include in her gross income? (Do not use commas or dollar signs.)

2. This year Ed celebrated his 25th year as an employee of Designer Jeans Company. He earned a salary of $150,000. Also, in recognition of his long and loyal service, the company awarded Ed a gold watch worth $238 and a $2540 cash bonus. What is Ed's gross income? (Do not use commas or dollar signs.)

3. Helen is a U.S. citizen and a CPA who moved to London, England, three years ago to work for a British company. This year, she spent the entire year in London and earned a salary of $141,600. Because she was required to live in London for her job, which has very high housing costs, Helen was paid a housing allowance equal to $36,153 for 2020 by the British company she worked for. She spent the entire housing allowance on a London apartment. What is Helen’s gross income for U.S. taxes? (See pp. 5-28 to 5-29) (Do not use commas or dollar signs.)

putting two arguments into standard form, one for a 'yes' answer to your topic question and one for a 'no' argument to your topic question.

are going to do the Covid Confidentiality question, then you need two arguments with the following conclusions:

'Yes' Argument

one

two

So, it's morally permissible for the university to reveal the identity of the Covid-positive employee

'No' Argument

one

two

So, it's morally wrong for the university to reveal the identity of the Covid-positive employee

As the instructions say, you're not writing the paper yet, and you don't need to explain the arguments in detail. Just identify two arguments for those opposing positions and put them into standard form clearly and precisely. Each argument should be plausible enough to be worth thinking about and should be either an Argument from Principle or an Argument from Analogy. The goal in this episode is not to write the paper; instead, you're doing a smaller assignment to help you develop ideas that you can later use in your paper.

Disclosing Names of COVID-19 Patients

A member of the institution gets ill after contracting COVID-19, and the president of the institution informs the staff and students about the case. Contact tracing begins to identify the persons who came into contact with the sick institution member. One of the institution members requests that they need to identify the sick patient's identity to protect themselves better. Revealing the institution member's name would break the confidentiality with the person and open him or her up to face discrimination as a COVID-19 patient and victim. I argue that the institution member's name should not be revealed for it will be a breach of confidentiality, and the control of the virus is better achieved while maintaining the confidentiality of patients who have tested positive.

A Prestigious University has undergraduate and graduate colleges, a law school, a university hospital, and a medical school, all in one single campus (Sulmasy & Veatch). The vast private institution called back students to take their belongings during spring break and initiate their classes online. After a week, the institution's president sent an email to the staff, students, and faculty informing them of a member of the University Staff who had contracted COVID-19 during the transition week (Sulmasy & Veatch). The University staff member was on campus during that week, and contact tracing protocol had begun to identify the individuals that had come to close contact with the patient. Those identified in the close contact list would self-quarantine for fourteen days to observe any COVID-19 symptoms (Sulmasy & Veatch). A Philosophy Department's professor posed the question of whether the staff member's name should be revealed to the community to help control the virus's spread (Sulmasy & Veatch).

The professor's proposition to reveal the University staff member's identity would amount to a confidentiality breach. Revealing of names of individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 does little to curb the virus's spread. In any case, it would make the control measures for the virus even difficult to achieve. Fewer people would report their positive cases if it meant that their names would be made public. Besides, the virus not only spreads by person-to-person contact but also contact with contaminated surfaces. Based on these reasons, the professor is not justified in revealing the names of patients who have tested positive for the disease unless a substantive case supporting the proposed strategy is presented.

Medical practitioners are governed by ethics and bioethics, compelling them not to reveal the medical information or history to the public. Even when asked by the patients themselves, which are very rare, healthcare providers would less likely breach patient confidentiality ethics. Suggesting that those who test positive for COVID-19 should reveal themselves to the public would mean that healthcare practitioners should act against their set bioethics, which would be very unprofessional. Even though the virus is deadly, it has resulted in a pandemic experience in the past with other diseases but at a lower scale, like the Influenza pandemic. During that pandemic, the control measures did not involve revealing the patient's names, yet the disease was reduced to controllable levels. There are better means to control the spread of the virus, and they would not require the breach of confidentiality by revealing patients' names in public.

A large educational institution like the one described above would have quite many people interacting in one day. It would be difficult for an individual to recall all the persons they interacted with together with their names. People are often forgetful of other's names, especially if they are meeting for the first time. Even though the public is provided with the name of the University staff member, they have forgotten whether they came into contact with the infected person. Also, they might not be sure whether they had close contact with the named person. Such forgetfulness would not benefit the efforts of contact tracing even after breaching the confidentiality of the patients.  

Public naming of individuals testing positive for COVID-19 would deter most people from coming forward for testing or reporting to the institution's management for contact tracing to follow suit. If more people abscond from testing, and revealing their health status for fear of breach of privacy and confidentiality, then the contact tracing and virus control measures are thwarted. Such a case would also increase the virus's spread since there will be more close contact without caution bearing in mind that some individuals may present as asymptomatic. The public naming that would have been instigated to promote safety and protection would eventually lead to more positive cases and contribute less to the goal of suppressing the virus spread.

Apart from close contact, individuals can also contract the virus by touching contaminated surfaces. Such cases of virus spread are difficult to identify with contact tracing. Also, in such a case, public naming would benefit little to curb the disease spread. Firstly, people may not remember if they saw such a person within their vicinity, bearing in mind the large number of people that could be present in a large Prestigious University. Secondly, it is not easy to identify a contaminated surface or the person in contact with such a surface at any given time. Even if the names are made known to the public, the virus spread from contaminated surfaces may not be addressed.

Despite the argument presented above, there are supporting points for the public naming of COVID-19 patients according to the professor's proposition. Certain circumstances would call for patient's disclosure of their illness to the public if the other individuals stand a chance of contracting the illness. Such a case is presented by the current pandemic, which poses death risks when contracting the virus. However, public naming would require the consent of the patient to disclose personal information to the public. Besides, the action would save the lives of others to exercise caution in the community.

The decision to breach confidentiality in public naming to protect the society members would be controversial but beneficial. Take a case where a HIV patient is disgusted by their diagnosis and seek to avenge by spreading the virus to other people. The HIV patient takes counseling sessions and confides their motives to the psychologist. In an act to honor ethics, the psychologist fails to inform the public to warn them of the impending danger if they get into contact with the vengeful patient. Later on, cases of HIV and HIV-related mortality rates spike in the community to which the vengeful patient is part. The psychologist would be liable for the lives lost, and patients added to the list of HIV positive cases due to failure to warn the community members.

The situation is similar to the analogy or case at hand. The rest of the University staff members and individuals in the community are at risk of contracting the virus from the sick staff member. A lack of information about an immediate threat to their lives would be their greatest undoing. Few people would be identified through contact tracing as the individual may not recall or know all the persons they came in contact with in the past week. Thus, the staff member should consent to make their identification public to trace more people and protect the rest of the faculty, staff, and community members. A tough decision would have to be made if consent is not provided. The decision would depend on the exposure risk involved for individuals to exercise more caution and the estimated number of persons that could have been affected. Such a decision would best be arrived at with the advice and presence of a physician. The duty to protect the public could balance off with confidentiality ethics.

The decision of public naming boils down to a debate on protecting the confidentiality and the public's safety from the virus. It is argued that public naming is unnecessary as it breaches confidentiality, deters others from reporting their positive status, may not improve contact tracing, and may not address virus spread from contaminated surfaces. A counterargument presents that public naming is beneficial for the community's protection and safety from contracting the deadly virus from the patient. Any decision chosen amongst the two would require compromises that are either accepted or unwelcomed by different factions. The burden of making such a decision lies with the physician and the infected University staff member.

Work Cited

Sulmasy, Daniel P., and Robert M. Veatch. "Should Institutions Disclose the Names of Employees with Covid‐19?." Hastings Center Report (2020).

I hope that helps. I look forward to seeing what you come up with

Consider two individuals who have the same wealth level and probability of experiencing the same large health shock (and associated large financial shock). Individual A is more risk averse than individual B. Which individual is willing to pay a greater premium for health insurance?

a. Individual A

b. Individual B

c. Neither; individuals A and B are willing to pay the same premium, since they face the same risk

d. Cannot be determined

1. Boris Company enters into a contract with Bella Company to manufacture, deliver, and install a specially made piece of machinery. The total contract price is $10,000,000. The contract provides that $5,000,000 must be paid to Boris when the machine is delivered and $5,000,000 must be paid when installation is complete. The junior accountant properly concluded that delivery of the manufactured machine and installation of the machine represent two separate performance obligations. The accountant properly allocated $1,000,000 of the contract price to the installation obligation and $9,000,000 to the delivery obligation.

     Boris delivers the machine to Bella’s factory on December 29, 2019 and Boris employees complete the installation of the machine on January 10, 2020. (SHOW ALL WORK)

Required:

Please prepare the appropriate accounting entries for Boris on December 29, 2019 and on January 10, 2020 assuming Bella makes the payments required under the contract.

2. James Company sells college textbooks to State University. Under the terms of the contract, State University may return whatever textbooks it does not sell for a full refund no later than 120 days from the date of delivery. Based on historic sales to State University and other college book stores, 30% of the books delivered are returned for a full refund.

     On August 1, 2019, James delivers books to State University with a sales value of $400,000. The books have a cost to James of $10,000. State University immediately pays the amount owed upon delivery.

Required:

Please prepare the entry to reflect the sale of the books for James on August 1, 2019.

1. Boris Company enters into a contract with Bella Company to manufacture, deliver, and install a specially made piece of machinery. The total contract price is $10,000,000. The contract provides that $5,000,000 must be paid to Boris when the machine is delivered and $5,000,000 must be paid when installation is complete. The junior accountant properly concluded that delivery of the manufactured machine and installation of the machine represent two separate performance obligations. The accountant properly allocated $1,000,000 of the contract price to the installation obligation and $9,000,000 to the delivery obligation.

     Boris delivers the machine to Bella’s factory on December 29, 2019 and Boris employees complete the installation of the machine on January 10, 2020.

Required:

Please prepare the appropriate accounting entries for Boris on December 29, 2019 and on January 10, 2020 assuming Bella makes the payments required under the contract.

2. James Company sells college textbooks to State University. Under the terms of the contract, State University may return whatever textbooks it does not sell for a full refund no later than 120 days from the date of delivery. Based on historic sales to State University and other college book stores, 30% of the books delivered are returned for a full refund.

     On August 1, 2019, James delivers books to State University with a sales value of $400,000. The books have a cost to James of $10,000. State University immediately pays the amount owed upon delivery.

Required:

Please prepare the entry to reflect the sale of the books for James on August 1, 2019.

your wonderful parents established a college savings plan for you when you were born. They deposited $50 into the account on the last day of each month. The account has earned 10% compounded monthly. Now you are off to Monash university. What equal amount can they withdraw beginning today (your 18th birthday) and each year for 4 years to spend on your education, assuming that the account now earns 7% annually?

You (US company) imported Earth Moving Equipment (EME) from Australia. You imported EME at US$ 300 (with Cash) on Dec 1, 2018. On Dec 15, 2018, you sold EME to Australia at A$400 (Australian $) in AR. The exchange rate on Dec 15, 2018 was 2 A$/US$. The exchange rate on Dec 31, 2018 was 4 A$/US$. On Feb 1, 2019, your customer paid you in full. The exchange rate on Feb 1 was 1 A$/US$. What were NI in 2018 and 2019, respectively? 100, 200 -100, 300 -200, 200 100, 100

Question #5.

After studying Chapter 26, we understand that futures and forwards can be used to reduce risk. What are the differences between futures and forwards?

A Canadian firm will have to pay US $1 million six months from now for the goods purchased from a US company. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company is concerned about potential increases in the value of the US dollar in the future. How could this firm hedge against this risk with forwards?

Forward contract quotations (CAD/USD)

On January 1, 2017, the ledger of Sheridan Company contained these liability accounts. Accounts Payable $44,300 Sales Taxes Payable 7,500 Unearned Service Revenue 20,800 During January, the following selected transactions occurred. Jan. 1 Borrowed $18,000 in cash from Apex Bank on a 4-month, 5%, $18,000 note. 5 Sold merchandise for cash totaling $6,254, which includes 6% sales taxes. 12 Performed services for customers who had made advance payments of $12,500. (Credit Service Revenue.) 14 Paid state treasurer’s department for sales taxes collected in December 2016, $7,500. 20 Sold 680 units of a new product on credit at $53 per unit, plus 6% sales tax. During January, the company’s employees earned wages of $70,300. Withholdings related to these wages were $5,378 for Social Security (FICA), $5,021 for federal income tax, and $1,506 for state income tax. The company owed no money related to these earnings for federal or state unemployment tax. Assume that wages earned during January will be paid during February. No entry had been recorded for wages or payroll tax expense as of January 31.