Namely, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants based out of Munich.
Supposedly the two will have their minds made up sometime next month but by the sounds of it, the two companies are flippin’ stoked about the possibilities:
“A merger opens up a unique opportunity for growth for both firms,” [Deloitte Germany Chief Executive] Plendl said.
Roland Berger confirmed the talks.
“Discussions with Deloitte are taking place to open new and fascinating growth prospects for our company,” Roland Berger Strategy Consultants said in an e-mailed statement today.
While that’s what is going in the foreground, Adam Jones over at the Financial Times was so bold to suggest that this just another step in Deloitte’s quest to “overtake McKinsey as the market leader in strategic advice for managers.”
Now we hadn’t heard about this McKinsey-slaying goal prior to today and it seems a little credulous to think that Deloitte is jockeying with McK, especially when you consider the domination of McKinsey in the eyes of those who work in the industry.
However, on paper Deloitte derives $7.5 billion from its consulting business which is nothing to sneeze at. Considering that and the fact that they haven’t exactly made their desire for mergers a secret, Deloitte this very well could be a step in earning another #1 notch in their belt (with matching suspenders).
But in the meantime, area man-cum-national fruitcake Glenn Beck thought he needed to warn all the eBay junkies out there that if don’t hock their stuff this year, they’ll be subject to the requirement next year:
Of course this is bullshit. Despite what GB might think about the national media, if this were in fact true, every outlet on the planet would have reported it already. The headlines would have screamed “WAR ON EBAY” and Meg Whitman could have campaigned on that (but probably still would’ve lost).
Anyhooo, just for good measure, The Hill’s Healthwatch also points out that Beck’s “exemption” claim is also false:
Beck also told his viewers on Tuesday’s show that “at least 111 companies have been declared exempt from having to use Obamacare.” In fact, the firms he refers to have been granted a one-year waiver from the requirement that their annual limit on coverage be at least $750,000.
“Exempt” versus “a one-year waiver.” Yeah, that’s almost the same thing.
Feeling ready for tax season? Ready for those Schedule C’s and Schedule F’s? Here’s a quick list of the things you will want to be familiar with to properly advise your small business clients.
• New Health Bill provisions. You’ll want to understand the small employer health insurance credit and what new employer health plans look like.
• Self-employed health insurance can be deducted on the business return for the first time, which reduces SE tax.
• Health reimbursement “qualified” arrangements
• The new $500,000 Section 179 expensing allowance, a brand new $250,000 Section 179 for real property assets including leasehold improvements and restaurant property, and the unexpected renewal of the 50% bonus depreciation.
• The 2010 Federal mileage, lodging and meal per diem rates. Recordkeeping for travel, entertainment and the new rules on cell phones.
• The “away-from-home-overnight” requirement for travel expense deductions.
• How to handle the blizzard of Form-1099Cs business clients are receiving and how this cancellation of debt income can be avoided or deferred.
• The status of “hobby loss” and the office-in-home limitation rules
• The new NOL carryback provisions
• The new depreciable lives on restaurant buildings
• The new 9% domestic production activity deduction, who qualifies, what qualifies and where to put it on the return
Got it all? Need help pulling all the information together? Get the details on these and other issues related to business tax in Part 3 of CPE Link’s Federal Tax Update webcasts scheduled November-January. Course includes downloadable manual containing hyperlinks to applicable code sections.
“I’m not worried about today, I’m worried about the three months and the six months and the nine months” from now, GM Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said in an interview this morning on CNBC.
Liddell also had some frank talk about how GM can never go back to the bad, old days, when he said GM was a financing company with a car company “attached,” and the auto maker used its pension plan as a “piggy bank.” GM needs to have a “fortress” balance sheet to support its business plan, Liddell said.
So the intention is there but old habits die hard, amiright? Francine McKenna thinks so and makes a prediction:
My prediction: GM needs another accounting restatement before the 2012 election. This time it shouldn’t be retail investors who end up with the short end of this stick.
Any takers? November 6, 2012 is the over/under. We’ll take the overs (post-election day) and if we lose, we’ll take FM to dinner at the restaurant of her choosing.
~ UPDATE includes link and quote from Overstock.com’s press release responding to the suit.
Gary Weiss is all over the $15 million lawsuit brought by seven California counties against Overstock.com today, noting that this could be a helluva problem for our fave SLC problem-child:
The counties had offered to settle with Overstock for as little as $7.5 million, but Overstock refused. No wonder: if the company had coughed up such a substantial amount of cash, it probably would have been driven into bankruptcy.
The suit came out of some alleged false comparative advertising claims (e.g. think Crazy Eddie commercials) including this one that got investigators on the case:
It was a Cottonwood man’s complaints about the firm that persuaded prosecutors to investigate the matter, said Erin Dervin, a Shasta County deputy district attorney.
In 2007, Mark Ecenbarger bought a patio set for $449 on Overstock. The website claimed the list price other companies were charging for the set was $999.99.
But when the furniture was delivered, there was a Walmart sticker on the side of the box showing the set was really worth $247.
Naturally, Overstock is saying that this one big misunderstanding and that isn’t how they do business. The prosecutors aren’t convinced:
The suit claims Overstock often outright makes up its list prices and compare-at prices based on arbitrary markups over the firm’s cost for the product. In many cases, Overstock entirely fabricated a fictitious comparison price and then claimed it was discounting that price, even when it was the only seller of the product, prosecutors allege.
You would think that such a troublesome lawsuit would cause havoc on the company’s stock price, wouldn’t you? Nope. Gary explains:
The reason for that is simple: fraud is already incorporated into the share price. This company is under SEC investigation for systematically cooking its books. Why should consumers be treated any differently than shareholders?
“Overstock.com stands by all our advertising practices, including providing comparison values which we thoroughly explain on our site. We have been singled out for standard industry practices, which we look forward to demonstrating in court,” said Jonathan Johnson, President of Overstock.com.
GM Is Low-Key About Return to Stock Market [WSJ]
General Motors Co., though eager to shed the “government motors” stigma, will take a low-key approach to touting its return to the public markets.
GM’s $18.1 billion IPO is its biggest step yet away from being owned by the U.S. government, which rescued the auto maker and became its largest shareholder with last year’s government bailout. The offering will reduce U.S. Treasury’s stake from 61% to around 26%.
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Bold, Controversial Stab at the Deficit and Tax Reform [Re:Balance]
Jim Peterson writes, “Having taken M Barnier to task, I was rightly challenged by readers to stop complaining and be constructive.” Accordingly, he has presented the message.
Leftish Think Tank: Film Credits Stink [Tax Update Blog]
Bipartisan opposition! Who knew it was possible?
FinReg May Hamper Job Growth [FINS]
New York’s Comptroller took a swing at D.C.’s financial reform measures in a report on the securities industry released this morning.
The office noted that measures to hamstring Wall Street compensation, prop trading and derivatives trading would crimp growth in the state’s overall workforce. Each securities job in New York creates two other jobs in the city and one position outside of the city, according to the comptroller.
Mark-to-Make-Believe Perfumes Rotten Loans [Jonathan Weil/Bloomberg]
Banks exploiting loopholes in fair value reporting rules? Get out!
2 Former Madoff Aides Are Arrested [DealBook]
Annette Bongiorno was arrested at her home in Boca Raton, Fla., and Joann Crupi was arrested at her residence in Westfield, N.J., the spokesman said. Both women worked for Mr. Madoff for more than 25 years. Ms. Bongiorno served as Mr. Madoff’s longtime personal secretary; Ms. Crupi, among other responsibilities, handled Madoff’s daily cash balances.
Qantas A380 suffered “cascade of failures”: report [Reuters]
The last thing you’re looking for when a plane is in the air is a ‘cascade’ of things going wrong.
FAF, FASB’s Parent Organization, Names Its First CEO [JofA]
Teresa S. (Terri) Polley gets the honor as well as keeping her old job as president.
“Everybody must sacrifice so this quiet killer won’t eat us alive before we have a chance to fix what was our doing.”
~ Former Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici who, along with Alice Rivlin, rolled out their fiscal deficit solution today that includes a 6.5% national sales tax.
Apple Inc. named former Northrop Grumman Corp. Chief Executive Officer Ron Sugar as a director, adding an aerospace-technology expert to a board that includes leaders in retail, cosmetics, software and politics.
Sugar, 62, will serve as the board’s audit and finance committee chairman, Cupertino, California-based Apple said today in a statement. Sugar headed Northrop, the third-largest U.S. military contractor, from 2003 until last year, helping the company consolidate $26 billion in acquisitions.
Okay, accounting/auditing isn’t the most mind-bending of trades, so why does Steve Jobs feel the need to appoint someone who has spent most of their careers putting things into space as their audit and finance chairs? We’re sure Mr. Sugar is an extremely smart man – c’mon, A ROCKET SCIENTIST! – and is obviously good with numbers but doesn’t this level of irrelevant expertise seem a tad ridiculous? Just wondering out loud.
With a sentence coming down circa any minute, the Koss embezzlement queen is probably starting to freak just a tad.
Accordingly, her attorneys are pulling out all the stops. The defense is now claiming that Sue’s assistant, Julie Mulvaney was “an enabler” and kept SS from having a nervous breakdown when things got dicey around the scam:
•In May of each year — a few weeks prior to scheduled visits from Koss outside auditors — Sachdeva would review the cash in the company’s ledgers, compare it with the cash in the company’s bank accounts and then determine the difference between the two. Sachdeva would presume the shortfall was equal to her theft of company funds.
“She would then call Julie Mulvaney into her office in a panic, and tell Mulvaney that cash was ‘off’ by a certain amount,” the memo states. “Mulvaney would respond by saying ‘let me look at everything and get back to you and don’t worry.’”
Mulvaney would then alter figures in the ledgers, the memo states.
•Sachdeva’s attorneys contend Mulvaney worked independently and without direct supervision “and only minimally shared her methods with Sachdeva.”
“Sachdeva, who was preoccupied with the fear of being discovered and too emotionally distraught to manage the fraudulent entries, would constantly ask Mulvaney at work if everything had been ‘fixed,’ and would frantically call Mulvaney at home, sometimes late at night, to see if the cash had been reconciled,” the memo states.
Sue was so emotionally distraught throughout the ordeal that she wandered into Valentina Boutique on a number of occasions and spent $1.4 million. Yeah, that makes sense.
John Carney comments on Sheila Bair’s bellyaching about mark-to-market today by simply wondering why there has to be a debate at all. That is, couldn’t accounting rules just be served up – presumably buffet style – and the banks would choose which treatment they like best and then regulators could judge their health based on their choices:
Here’s what I don’t get: why do we need one set of accounting standards at all? To put it differently, why should banking regulators feel obliged to judge the safety and soundness of financial institutions according to any measure that they do not like? If Bair doesn’t think fair value is appropriate to the banking sector, can’t she just ignore fair value when judging whether banks satisfy regulatory requirements?
It’s an interesting question. Why does the FDIC care what fair value says when determining bank health? Analysts use and refer to non-GAAP data all the time, so what difference does it make if regulators rationalize their analysis on similar non-GAAP measures?
After explaining that, despite the complaints of a certain billionaire (among others), transparency is actually a good thing, Carney floats an idea:
My truly radical proposal is that we should probably do away with this argument altogether by allowing banks—and every other company for that matter—to choose which accounting standards they want to use. If amortized cost is truly a better standard, banks using that will surely be rewarded by higher stock prices and cheaper access to credit. On the other hand, if fair value is appropriate, the market will reward that. Why not let banks choose and bear the costs of their choice?
While we’re with John in spirit (especially for the banks, they run things after all), the BSDs in the accounting will never let this fly. The idea of letting individual companies determine what accounting rules to follow is enough to cause Big 4 partners to set themselves on fire in the middle of Union Square in protest.
However, if you’ve got thoughts on we could put this thing in motion, it might be kind of fun to see how it works out.
Welcome to the one-more-week-until-a-half-day edition of “I’m an accountant and I need you to fix my problem.” In today’s edition, a senior manager has a new associate who is bouncing between firm-approved and firm-unapproved skirts. The extra skin has gotten some attention and the SM has already given the associate a vague warning. What’s next?
Caught e at work? Need advice on how to behave around a monarch? Looking at some jail time and need some ideas on how to spend your final days outside? Email us at advice@goingconcern.com and we’ll make sure you’ll behavior is acceptable/memorable for your respective situation.
All right then, enough skirting the issue:
I am a Senior Audit Manger. “Danica” is a newly hired audit staff. I am not “Danica’s” mentor. Technically “Danica” is about average. Unfortunately, “Danica” wears skirts six to seven inches above the knee. The firm dress code is three inches above the knee.
When she interviewed and for her first two weeks her presentation was excellent, nicely tailored three inches above the knee or a pants suit, nice hair and make-up. I know this a not lack of knowledge or a lack of funds to purchase a work wardrobe. In week three, when the short skirts first appeared, I called her into my office explained that accounting was a conservative profession and regardless of what our clients wore they expected us to be dressed professionally. I also explained that it was just as important she dress conservatively in the office as she could be sent to a client at anytime and the partners form an opinion of her when she is in the office. I did not explicitly mention the length or her skirts. The following two weeks she dressed correctly again and I patted myself on the back for effectively counseling a nice young staff member.
Two weeks later the short skirts were back again. Since that time one client made a negative comment as “Danica” walked past the conference room. Two other staff have asked me if new staff received copies of the dress code.
We spent a lot of money putting her through training. I would like to salvage “Danica’s” career if I can. I personally like her. I don’t think it is too late. In a few months people would chalk it up to poor judgment by a new staff member; not much worse than posting drunken photos on their facebook page. If she corrected her dress between now and the end of Decmber, then I could staff her on my jobs during busy season. However, I don’t want to open the firm up to a discrimination lawsuit if she takes this the wrong way.
What if anything do I do next?
Dear Fashion Police,
Being a proponent of fantastic gams, this particular issue may cause our thoughts to drift but we understand that you have a problem and we’ll do our best to stay objective here.
Judging by the timing (short skirts are appearing every two weeks) it’s possible that the young lady’s wardrobe is of the size that the shorter hems are simply appearing in their usual spot of the attire rotation. Your sit-down in week three sounds a little ambiguous and it appears the associate’s did not get the point of your little chat.
The fact that others have noticed is cause for concern (unless the associate is campaigning) and it may be time for another chat. This time reference your firm’s dress code rather than explain that accountants are expected to “dress professionally.” Ask the associate if has questions and allow them to communicate their feelings on the situation. You need to avoid any confusion on situation, otherwise you’re just compounding the problem.
The risk of a discrimination lawsuit is minimal** based on the fact that you have an explicit policy that all employees must follow. Danica is a new associate and this is a blip on her career so nip this issue in the bud and everyone will move on quickly.
**DISCLAIMER: I’m not a lawyer but, come on. There’s a policy!
For years prior to 2010, only taxpayers with modified AGI of $100,000 or less generally were permitted to convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. For years beginning in 2010 and after, the AGI limitation has been eliminated. Thus, regardless of AGI, all otherwise eligible taxpayers will be allowed to convert an IRA to a Roth IRA. The amount converted is includible in income as if a withdrawal had been made, but no early withdrawal penalties are assessed.
Two-year income spread if conversion done in 2010 – For conversions occurring in 2010, unless a taxpayer elects otherwise, none of the amount is includible in gross income in 2010, with half of the income resulting from the conversion includible in gross income in 2011 and h , income inclusion is accelerated if converted amounts are distributed before 2012. In that case, the amount included in income in the year of the distribution is increased by the amount distributed, and the amount included in income in 2012 (or 2011 and 2012 in the case of a distribution in 2010) is the lesser of: (1) half of the amount includible in income as a result of the conversion; and (2) the remaining portion of such amount not already included in income. The following example illustrates the application of the accelerated inclusion rule.
Example – Betty has a traditional IRA with a value of $100,000 consisting of deductible contributions and earnings. Betty does not have a Roth IRA. She converts the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2010, and as a result of the conversion, $100,000 is includible in gross income. Unless Betty elects otherwise, $50,000 of the income resulting from the conversion is included in income in 2011 and $50,000 in 2012.
Later in 2010, Betty takes a $20,000 distribution, which is not a qualified distribution and all of which, under the ordering rules, is attributable to amounts includible in gross income as a result of the conversion. Under the accelerated inclusion rule, $20,000 is included in income in 2010.
The amount included in income in 2011 is the lesser of (1) $50,000 (half of the income resulting from the conversion); or (2) $80,000 (the remaining income from the conversion). The amount included in income in 2012 is the lesser of (1) $50,000 (half of the income resulting from the conversion), or (2) $30,000 (the remaining income from the conversion, i.e., $100,000 – $70,000 ($20,000 included in income in 2010 and $50,000 included in income in 2011)).
Preparer note – While you cannot elect out of the two year spread on only a portion of the conversion income in 2010 (it’s an all or nothing election), husband and wife may each make separate elections for their individual IRA accounts. For example, a wife could elect to report her conversion income in 2010 and her husband could report his 2010 conversion income in 2011 and 2012. This may result a better spread of the income. The same taxpayer is allowed to make separate elections for separate IRA accounts.
If you need guidance on answering the question, “should my client convert to a Roth?” check out CPE Link’s Federal Tax Update: Part 2 webcast scheduled November-January.. You’ll get a myriad of planning ideas and even access to a simple, but sophisticated, calculator. (Note: The above information was excerpted from Vern Hoven’s manual used in the webcast.) In addition to coverage of the IRA & Individual Retirement area, you’ll get an update on Real Estate & Investment, and Estates, Trusts & Beneficiaries.
Before you go!
Are you Looking for a fresh accounting career opportunity?
Going Concern now has thousands of open accounting jobs.
~ UPDATE includes link and quote from Overstock.com’s press release responding to the suit.
With a