I. Purposes of the Brief
This brief amicus curiae does not address the merits of the predatory pricing allegation against BuyGasCo Corporation ("BuyGasCo"). It speaks only to the nature of the cost accounting system that we, as students of accounting, think to be appropriate for addressing the issues presented by cases of this general type.
We offer our views on this subject out of concern about the allocation of indirect costs used in assessing the appropriate gasoline cost value in State of Florida v. BuyGasCo Corporation, 2003-05143 (D. FL. 2003). We regard the allocation system employed in that opinion to be inconsistent with systems in common practice. Use of that system has a potential adverse effect on both the motor fuel retailing industry and the motor fuel market. It should not be employed in judging the issues in the Florida v. BuyGasCo dispute.
This brief aims to aid the court in constructing a more appropriate framework for resolving the indirect cost allocation issues presented by the case. Before proceeding with a discussion of this framework, it may be helpful to the court to know that we agree with the view expressed in the initial decision: that BuyGasCo's cost for regular grade gasoline exceeded their price.
We understand that the court is currently considering BuyGasCo's motion for appeal and that the motion relies heavily on the cost accounting system developed by Dr. J. T. Humboldt. Although we agree with the accuracy and fundamentals of Activity-Based Costing systems such as Dr Humboldt's, we disagree with his allocation methodology and calculations.
II. Background
The Florida Motor Fuel Marketing Practices Act (MFMPA) determines motor fuel cost for non-refiners as the actual invoice price...
... middle of paper ...
... regular grade gasoline was sold at a $0.0021 loss.
Exhibit 6
Recommended Refined Costing Method
Cost Pool Driver Regular Plus Premium
1: Labor
($5,220) Gallons of Gas Sold 60.3% $3,148 22.4% $1,169 17.3% $903
2: Attendant Housing ($4,501) Gallons of Gas Sold 60.3% $2,714 22.4% $1,008 17.3% $779
3: Common Gasoline Dispensing
($15,388) Gallons of Gas Sold 60.3% $9,279 22.4% $3,447 17.3% $2,662
4: Grade Specific Gasoline Dispensing
($8,068) Number of Grades 33.3% $2,689 33.3% $2,689 33.3% $2,690
Total Cost $17,830 $8,313 $7,034
Cost Per Gallon $0.0521 $0.0654 $0.0716
Exhibit 6, continued
Price Direct Cost Indirect Cost Profit(Loss)
Premium $1.43 $1.22 $0.0716 $0.1384
Plus $1.36 $1.20 $0.0654 $0.0946
Regular $1.23 $1.18 $0.0521 ($0.0021)
VII. Conclusions
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the hearing should be affirmed.
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
Does the first amendment overrule the Texas law that forbids the desecration of a venerated object under these circumstances?
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
Deere & Company (Deere) has been experiencing a decrease in its profit margins for one of its aftermarket resale products, specifically the gatherer chain, over the past couple of years. Currently, the cost-price ratio is at 80% compared to last year’s 50%. The purchase cost for the gatherer chain has been steadily increasing, while the aftermarket price has been decreasing. Deere has been budgeting its price to match that of a major competitor, which has been causing the decrease. The company’s main supplier of its gatherer chain is Saunders Manufacturing, with which Deere has established a long term relationship. The owner of Saunders has a reputation of being a tough negotiator, and is someone who is known for not willing to share financial information about the company. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce has provided financial estimates in Saunders’ industry as follows: material spend, 42%; direct labor, 16%; indirect labor, 6%; Overhead, 20%. These percentages are helpful to Deere because they can be used in the negotiation process with Sanders. Since Sanders will not share any specific cost information, Deere is able to use these estimates as a way to justify Sanders reducing its prices. Using these estimates during the negotiations might also incentivize Sanders to provide accurate numbers for its specific manufacturing costs.
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case in the annals of American Law because it was the first time the Supreme Court turned to the controversial question of capital punishment. Capital punishment has always been a hotly debated issue in the United States. When this issue is coupled with the issue of racial discrimination, the matter becomes hotter than ever. And this is precisely what Furman v. Georgia was all about: a black man convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
In the John Deere case, they were calling a lot of things overhead that weren't truly overhead (e.g. scrap, which is probably proportional to the amount produced). We discussed with my group how the internal transfer pricing arrangement probably encouraged the managers to think this way, since it awarded contracts on the basis of direct costs but, by the books, the actual transfer price was supposed to be the full price. In summary, the John Deere case was an exercise in thinking about how not to make pricing decisions.
Research has proven that there are serious concerns with E15 gasoline and its effect on motor vehicles. Unfortunately, a majority of car owners have never heard of E15 gasoline and are unaware of the damage it can cause to their vehicles. Changing the quality of gasoline available to consumers without their knowledge is irresponsible and unscrupulous. The fact that the government has chosen to ignore industry concerns pertaining to this new blend of gasoline demonstrates they are not following the accepted rules of morally right behavior and therefore they are guilty of unethical behavior.
The plaintiffs also argued that they would go bankrupt if they were forced to adhere to a different GHG standard for each state. Should they be granted relief on this basis? Does history support their claim? Discuss. Numerous regulations have been put in service and have changed over time in order to control new pollutants released into the air. Nonetheless, automobile industry has always been able to evolve and adapt their manufacturing to meet the EPA guidelines. If the automobile production is feeling pressure from EPA, State and Federal governments then it’s time for them to focus on creating innovative environmental friendly cars. Despite the automobile industry needing to conform to new eco-friendly policies, they will not go bankrupt from progressing their automotive engineering.
Others feel that ABC would be more widespread in industry if it were marketed better by the cost accounting profession itself [1]. As the dust has settled, ABC has turned out to be less a revolutionary technique than a useful refinement to proven systems. The costs of products and services must be accurate, or management can be misled. Decisions... ...
CEO Kenneth Lay’s ambition for ENRON a company he had helped form went beyond the business of piping gas. Enron went to become the largest natural gas merchant in North America and the United Kingdom. But the reality is, this company business model never worked. This was a company that was so desperate to win Wall Street 's respect that it kept it stocks shares prices going up despite the losses it was incurring in order for executives to keep lining their own pockets. Over the course of this Case Assignment, I will identify the examples of financial reporting misconduct, I will explain the deontological as well as a utilitarian ethical perspective and lastly I will identify the stakeholders likely to be affected by that misconduct.