{"id":185345,"date":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/writemyessayfree.com\/%ef%bb%bf-case-study"},"modified":"2018-10-24T09:15:08","modified_gmt":"2018-10-24T09:15:08","slug":"%ef%bb%bf-case-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/%ef%bb%bf-case-study\/","title":{"rendered":"\ufeff Case Study"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><\/strong><br \/> Case Study<\/p>\n<p>Project description<br \/> Read the case and identify the relevant facts and moral principles; evaluate and discuss the choices and actions that you would have taken under the same circumstances, support your solution with appropriate background information<\/p>\n<p>company. But maybe we should reconsider whether being<br \/> socially responsible means giving to charitable causes in the<br \/> first place. ls that somethrng we are truly obligated to do, or are<br \/> lve just following a fad? I mean, I hate to bring up the bottom<br \/> line, but every dollar we give to the Boy Scouts or anybody else<br \/> is one less dollar for the company and its stockholders.\u201d<br \/> \u201cCome on, Scott, you know it\u2019s not as simple as that,\u2019,<br \/> responded Susan Lee. \u201cCharitable contributions bring us good<br \/> will, and it\u2019s the kind of thing the community expects an enlightened<br \/> company to do, \u201d<br \/> \u201cYou may not be persuaded, Scott,\u201d Ed Framers added, \u201cbut<br \/> I think what Susan says is right. ln any case, we don\u2019t need a<br \/> debate about general principles, We need to figure out what we<br \/> are going to do about the Boy Scouts.\u201d<br \/> The meeting continued . , .<br \/> CH,dPTER FITE CORPORATIONS 237<br \/> DISCUSSION QUESTTONS<br \/> What do you think Baytown should do? Explain your<br \/> reasoning. What business factors are relevant t0 your<br \/> decision? What moral factors?<br \/> Are Bayt0wn\u2019s directors operating with a broad 0r a narrow<br \/> conception of corporate responsibility?<br \/> Were Baytown and the other companies right to have<br \/> withdrawn their support from the Boy Scouts? ls there<br \/> anything wrong with companies\u2019 attempting to influence<br \/> the policies of an organization like the Scouts?<br \/> What do you think explains Bank of America\u2019s policy<br \/> reversal? ls Lynn Martin\u2019s cynicism warranted?<br \/> ScottArming doubts that businesses have an obligation to<br \/> supporl charitable organizations. Do they?<br \/> 1.<br \/> 2.<br \/> ffi<br \/> CASE 5.6<br \/> Corporate Taxation<br \/> IN THE UNITED STAIES, THE RAIE AI WHICH<br \/> corporations are taxed ranges from I 5 to 35 percent, depending<br \/> on the size 0f their income. That\u2019s a higher top marginal tax<br \/> rate than in any other developed country, But 35 percent is only<br \/> the nominal rate; few if any corporations actually pay that much.<br \/> 0ver a recent five-year period, for example, General Electric paid<br \/> 17.9 percent of its income in corporate taxes, and that includes<br \/> not lust federal tax but state, local, and foreign taxes as well.<br \/> EedEx paid 20.1 percent in federal tax,Amazon 6.6 percent, and<br \/> Ford Motor Company 4.2 percenlThe reason for this is that the<br \/> tax code provides corporations with plenty of exemptions, ln fact,<br \/> a study by the Government Accountability 0ffice estimates that<br \/> 80 or so business exemptions cut in half the revenue coming<br \/> from corporate taxation. Two of the biggest corporate tax breaks<br \/> are accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment and<br \/> deferral of income from foreign sources.BB<br \/> That\u2019s one of the main reasons why these days corporations<br \/> pay a smaller share of the nation\u2019s taxes than they used to. ln<br \/> the I 950s, the revenue from corporate taxation amounted to<br \/> about a third of total federal tax revenue or about 6 percent of the<br \/> nation\u2019s income. Today it amounts to less than a tenth-that is,<br \/> to about $1 out of every $10 collected in federaltax-or about<br \/> 2 percent of national income. Personal income taxes and payroll<br \/> taxes (which support Social Security and Medicare) provide about<br \/> 80 percent of the federal government\u2019s annual revenue.<br \/> For many companies, tax avoidance is a sophisticated<br \/> game-almost an art form. ln 2013 it came out that Apple, the<br \/> nation\u2019s most profitable technology company, was also one of its<br \/> 238 ITAR\u2019]\u2019T,O AMERICAN BUSIN[S5 ANI] ITS BASI$<br \/> most successful tax avoiders, thanks to a complex web of international<br \/> subsidiaries the company has created. Many of those<br \/> subsidiaries are incorporated in lreland, where Apple negotiated<br \/> a special tax rate of only 2 percent, although in fact they are run<br \/> from Cupertino, California. Furthermore, even though they are<br \/> incorporated in lreland, some of these offshore entities have no<br \/> stated country of tax residence and thus pay no taxes at all, even<br \/> though they hold tens of billions of dollars.<br \/> 0ther companies, such as Microsoft and Google, engage<br \/> in \u201ctransfer pricing.\u201d This shifts profits generated in the United<br \/> States to offshore tax havens where the IRS can\u2019t get at them.<br \/> Companies accomplish this trick by transferring intellectual<br \/> property rights to specially created foreign subsidiaries, which<br \/> then charge the parent company stiff licensing fees for using its<br \/> own intellectual propefty. But even low-tech companies can be<br \/> good at shell games like this. Caterpillar cut its tax bill by $300<br \/> million a Vear simply by putting the name of a Swiss subsidiary<br \/> on the invoices for parts it sent from the United States to customers<br \/> around the world. Even Starbucks figured out how to play<br \/> the game. lt told shareholders that it was making large profits<br \/> in Britain but filed U.K. tax forms showing losses, resulting in its<br \/> paying no British taxes at all for three years in a row, despite billions<br \/> of dollars in sales there.<br \/> With the possible exception of Caterpillar, these companies<br \/> have done nothing illegal. There is a difference between tax evasion,<br \/> which is illegal, and tax avoidance, which is not. Emphasizing<br \/> this distinction, Judge Learned Hand famously wrote:<br \/> Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be<br \/> as low as possible; he is not bound to chOOse that pattern<br \/> which best pays the treasury, There is . , , nothing sinister<br \/> in so arranging affairs as t0 keep taxes as low as possible,<br \/> Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for<br \/> nobody owes any public duty t0 pay more than the law<br \/> demands.<br \/> Still, it strikes many people as unfair when corporations<br \/> seem t0 be dodging their fair share of the country\u2019s tax burden,<br \/> That\u2019s probably why, when news of Starbucks\u2019s tax avoidance<br \/> broke, the company voluntarily agreed to pay about $16 million<br \/> in British taxes. \u201cWe believe that acting responsibly makes good<br \/> business sense,\u201d says Corey duBrowa, senior vice president for<br \/> global communications, \u201cand payment 0f corporate tax in the<br \/> U.K. is a good example of this ethos in action.\u201d Some business<br \/> commentators applaud Starbucks. \u201cJust because tax avoidance<br \/> is legal,\u201d writes John Cassidy, \u201cdoesn\u2019t mean that lt is right.\u201d<br \/> Allan Sloan agrees; although lower taxes mean higher profiis,<br \/> \u201cgoing to extraordinary lengths to avoid taxes helps undermine<br \/> companies\u2019 long term-interest by hurting society and by giving<br \/> average people yet another reason to detest Big Business.\u201d<br \/> The world\u2019s richest economies are now cooperating in an effort<br \/> to curb the tax avoidance strategies used by multinational corporations.<br \/> lt\u2019s worth notlng, Ihough, that some economists oppose<br \/> corporate taxation in principle, They think only persons should be<br \/> taxed. ln their view, corporate taxation involves a kind of double<br \/> taxation. Corporations pay tax 0n their income, which is then taxed<br \/> again when it gets passed on to individuals in the form of dividends<br \/> Although the tax revenue that would be lost by abolishing the<br \/> corporate income tax would have to be offset by higher taxation<br \/> on individuals, doing so would, these economists believe, promote<br \/> economic efficiency since companies would no longer spend so<br \/> much time, energy, and money trying to avoid or reduce their taxes.<br \/> DrscrJssr0N qussrIoNs<br \/> ln your opinion, do corporations now pay their fair share<br \/> of taxes? Explain why or why not. lf not, what should be<br \/> done about it?<br \/> Do corporations have a social responsibility not t0 exploit<br \/> loopholes in the tax system or use accounting tricks to<br \/> dodge taxes? Explain whY or whY not.<br \/> lf a company like Apple is not acting illegally, is there<br \/> anything wrong with its tax avoidance glmmicks? In<br \/> general, is there anything wrong with either individuals or<br \/> corporations arranging their affairs so as to minimize their<br \/> taxes? ls that all thatApple was doing?<br \/> Why do you think Starbucks decided to pay voluntarily<br \/> taxes it was not legally required to pay? Was this the right<br \/> decision from the moral point of view? From the business<br \/> point of view? Should Apple do something similar?<br \/> 5. Should corporate taxation be abolished? Explain why or<br \/> why not.<br \/> 6\u2033 lndividual income from dividends and capital gains is now<br \/> taxed at a lower rate than individual income from wages.<br \/> ls ihis fair?<br \/> 7. ln orderto avoid U.S.taxes,some long-standingAmerican<br \/> companies have reincorporated overseas, which lhey can<br \/> do if, after a merger or acquisition, {oreign shareholders<br \/> own more than 20 percent of the company. Should<br \/> companies be permitted t0 relocate for tax purposes?<br \/> ls their doing so morally acceptable? ls it unpatriotic?<br \/> 1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Study Project description Read the case and identify the relevant facts and moral principles; evaluate and discuss the choices and actions that you would have taken under the same circumstances, support your solution with appropriate background information company. But <a href=\"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/%ef%bb%bf-case-study\/\" class=\"read-more\">Read More &#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}