Reference no: EM131661569

Part I -

You are working on the valuation of accounts receivable, and bad debt reserves for the current year's annual report. The CFO stops by and asks you to reduce the reserve by enough to increase the current year's EPS by 2 cents a share. The company's policy has always been to use the previous year's actual bad debt percentage adjusted for a specific economic index. The CFO's suggested change would still be within acceptable GAAP. However, later, you learn that with the increased EPS, the CFO would qualify for a significant bonus. What do you do and why?

Part II -

Consider the following: Accounting firm KPMG created tax shelters called BLIPS, FLIP, OPIS, and SOS that were based largely in the Cayman Islands and allowed wealthy clients (there were 186) to create $5 billion in losses, which were then deducted from their income for IRS tax purposes. BLIPS (Bond Linked Issue Premium Structures) had clients borrow from an offshore bank for purposes of purchasing currency. The client would then sell the currency back to thelender for a loss. However, the IRS contends the losses were phony and that there was never any risk to the client in the deals. The IRS has indicted eight former KPMG partners and an outside lawyer alleging that the transactions were shams, illegal methods for avoiding taxes. KPMG has agreed to pay a $456 million fine, no longer to do tax shelters, and to cooperate with the government in its prosecution of the nine individuals involved in the tax shelter scheme. Many argue that the courts have not always held that such tax avoidance schemes show criminal intent because the tax laws permit individuals to minimize taxes.  However, the IRS argues that these shelters evidence intent because of the lack of risk.

In this case, the IRS contends that the losses generated by the tax shelters were phony and that the clients never incurred any risk. Do tax avoidance schemes indicate criminal intent if the tax laws permit individuals to minimize taxes? Justify your answer.