Search results

As with most professional service occupations, liability claims are a major concern for accounting professionals. Most of the academic research on accountants’ professional liability has focused on audit services. This study extends research on accountants’ professional liability by examining liability claims arising from the provision of tax services. In addition to a descriptive analysis, the current study explores the role of merit in tax malpractice litigation. Hypotheses are developed based on the legal construct of claim merit, which requires the presence of accountant error and damages as a result of that error for a claim to be considered meritorious. The hypotheses are tested using logistic and OLS regression of 89 actual claims filed with an insurer of tax professionals. The results suggest that the components of merit are significant in determining both the presence of compensatory payments to the client and the dollar amount of those payments, although the hypothesized interaction effect is only significant for the dollar amount of compensatory payments.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. is a challenge to conventional antitrust analysis. Conventional civil antitrust cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that conduct challenged under the rule of reason is only condemned if the conduct resulted in more competitive harm in the actual world than a world without the alleged violation. Under conventional analysis, the intent of the parties also plays only a supporting role in determining whether the conduct was anticompetitive. A holder of a valid patent has a right to exclude others practicing the patented technology. And, the patent holder is not assumed to have market power because it expended resources in maintaining exclusionary rights. Actavis creates doubts about these propositions in circumstances beyond the “reverse” payment settlement of a patent suit that may have delayed an alleged infringer market entry. This chapter explores whether applying Actavis logic to antitrust litigation can result in condemnation of practices where there is little chance of an anticompetitive effect, where the patent holder likely has a valid and infringed patent, where there is little reason to believe that the patent holder has market power, and where only one party, or no parties, to an agreement have an anticompetitive intent. This chapter also investigates whether Actavis creates new problems with standing analysis, damages calculations, and the balancing of efficiencies against anticompetitive effects. Nevertheless, the lower courts have begun to extend the logic of Actavis. This is apparent in the condemnation of no-Authorized-generic settlements.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the claim that the tie-break criterion introduced under the Equality Act 2010 is not really positive action as is claimed by its government sponsors. It evaluates this claim by locating the tie-break into equal opportunities theory, taking into account merit considerations, and reviews its potential implications.

A conceptual discussion of the tie-break.

The paper concludes that the tie-break is not positive action, nor is it positive discrimination. It employs the framework established by Forbes (1991) and attempts to locate it in theoretical discussions of the need to refine merit to take identity characteristics into account. While it could serve to make a more sophisticated approach to merit possible it fails to achieve its implicit potential in this regard.

The paper is conceptual and will benefit from empirical support in the future.

Practically, the tie-break promises to add some greater clarity to the muddled understanding of equal opportunities and diversity that underpins much policy and legislation. As a result it will arguably prove hard to implement and will carry other associated problems.

Socially, the tie-break, mis-represented as it currently is, promises to create greater uncertainty around the nature and purposes of equality of opportunity. Consequently, it could exacerbate tensions and hostilities and promote significant resistance to “equality” measures.

This paper is an original conceptual piece that will shine a light on an important legal innovation. The tie-break is not what it is described to be and carries both potential and threat for advocates of equality of opportunity. In pursuing socially significant outcomes of this type, conceptual accuracy and transparency are vital, and this paper contributes to this endeavour.

As Lindsay (1994, 1995) encourages validation of existing results, this research replicates Guilding and McManus (2002) in a New Zealand (NZ) context. The usage and perceived merit of customer accounting practices were lower in NZ than in the Australian study. Few of the regressions where customer accounting usage and perceived merit were dependent variables revealed a statistically significant role for competition intensity and market orientation. There was some minor support for the perceived merit of customer accounting being higher in companies experiencing medium levels of competition intensity.

This paper aims to examine how the work of Ruth Simpson and the subsequent collaborations have contributed to understanding of the gendered constructions of meritocracy, as they apply in organizations.

This paper is a personal analysis of the work of Ruth Simpson and her colleagues and the way in which her work has resonated with me and influenced our joint collaborations. The key questions our work has addressed, both when we work together and with others, include how merit is constructed. Is it gendered? How does it influence organizational outcomes? How is merit recognized? Is merit “performed”? Key theoretical constructs and frameworks are used to address these issues; including, gendered organizational structures and regimes (Acker, 1990; Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Gherardi and Poggio, 2001), the gendered nature of meritocracy (Thornton, 2007; Sommerlad, 2012, Brink van den and Benschop, 2012) and the performance and “stickiness” of meritocracy (Ashcraft, 2013, Bergman and Chalkley, 2007).

The paper reveals alternative ways of interrogating the discourse of meritocracy. Usually taken for granted, as an objective and fair mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources, the concept is examined and found to be much more contingent, unstable and subjective than had previously been considered. The gender-based implications of these findings are assessed.

The implications of the work are to broaden the field and develop frameworks within which we can understand more clearly the way in which merit is understood. Through the work we have done, we have highlighted that merit far from being an objective measure of ability is deeply rooted in contextual and we argue, gendered understandings of contribution, worth and desert.

The practical implications are that firms can no longer rely on discourses of meritocracy to evidence their commitment to equality and fairness. They will need to go further to show a direct link between fairness in the design of processes as well as fairness in the outcomes of these processes. Until these objectives are more clearly articulated, we should continue to shine a light on embedded inequalities.

The social implications are that a call for wider societal understanding of meritocracy should be made. Rather than simply accepting discourses of merit, key constituent groups who have not benefitted from the prevailing orthodoxy should seek to examine the concept and draw their own conclusions. In this manner, the author develops societal mechanisms that do not just purport to ensure equality of outcome for all; they achieve it.

This paper offers an examination of the development of ideas, how we can learn from the work of influential scholars within the field and, in turn, through collaboration, advance understanding.

In class action antitrust litigation, the standards for acceptable economic analysis at class certification have continued to evolve. The most recent event in this evolution is the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1435 (2013). The evolution of pre-Comcast law on this topic is presented, the Comcast decision is thoroughly assessed, as are the standards for developing reliable economic analysis. This article explains how economic evidence of both antitrust liability and damages ought to be developed in light of the teachings of Comcast, and how liability evidence can be used by economists to support a finding of common impact for certification purposes. In addition, the article addresses how statistical techniques such as averaging, price-dispersion analysis, and multiple regressions have and should be employed to establish common proof of damages.

Formula‐based allocation schemes are often proposed as a means of making the allocations of public funding more equitable, and more efficient. Unfortunately, these goals may be undermined by imperfect measures of merit. In particular, if the measures are subject to random variation or manipulation, the formula‐based schemes may lead to disincentives and lack of efficiency. Develops a simplified model of a hierarchical allocation system and analyse stochastic models for the most important sources of variation in the system. Practical proposals for limiting the variability are studied and the framework is applied to the Finnish university system.

To develop a methodology for faculty salary adjustment through market adjustment based on market demand for business PhDs and merit adjustment based on faculty members' performance levels in the areas of teaching, research and service.

The methodology is composed of two models: one for market adjustment and the other for merit adjustment. The market adjustment is handled through goal programming and the merit adjustment through data envelopment analysis (DEA).

The approach when applied to a sample of faculty salaries shows that the adjusted salary of each faculty member is higher than his/her current actual salary, and each faculty member in the particular discipline deserves a salary increase that reflects market demand and merit factors.

The DEA model used in this research does not impose restrictions on the weights. Realistically, one may impose bounds on the weights and exclude unreasonable solutions from DEA analysis and also set multiple goals instead of the single goal used in the goal programming model.

Based on a goal programming model that addresses the market demand and a DEA model that addresses the merit‐based performances, this methodology may be implemented as a solution procedure for restructuring faculty salaries.

The novelty in this approach is that DEA is being used as a benchmarking technique for merit adjustment of faculty salaries. In that sense, this research work may be the first, where benchmarking has been used in “faculty salary equity adjustment.”

Examines the relationships between trust and perceived control on faculty reactions to a new merit pay system. In this system, faculty committees made recommendations to the administration, who made the final award decisions. A total of 286 faculty responded toasurvey that asked about their beliefs regarding the criteria used to make merit awards, their perceptions and opinions about the merit system, perceived outcomes from having the system, how much they trusted the administration, how much they trusted their colleagues, and whether they saw the merit system as being used as a negative form of control. Respondents indicated that the more they trusted the administration, the more they saw positive outcomes from the new system. The more the system was seen as a method of negative control, the more respondents reported negative outcomes from the program. In general, support was found for Lawler’s prescriptions regarding the role of trust and valid performance measures in effective merit pay systems.