Sunday, December 20, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist - Tiger Woods, Person of the Year - NYTimes.com

From what I can tell, Accenture is a solid company. But the Daily News columnist Mike Lupica raised a good point when I spoke with him last week: “If Tiger Woods was so important to Accenture, how come I didn’t know what Accenture did when they fired him?” According to its Web site, Accenture is “a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company,” but who cared about any fine print? It was Tiger, and Tiger was it, and no one was to worry about the details behind the mutually advantageous image-mongering. One would like to assume that Accenture’s failure to see or heed any warning signs about a man appearing in 83 percent of its advertising is an anomalous lapse. One would like to believe that business and government clients didn’t hire Accenture just because it had Tiger’s imprimatur. But in a culture where so many smart people have been taken so often, we can’t assume anything.
Op-Ed Columnist - Tiger Woods, Person of the Year - NYTimes.com
Blogged with the Flock Browser

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Accenture partners claim that the company enforces high ethical standards but the facts shows differently.
Douglas Scrivner responded to a SEC related to the reestructuring costs that http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1143908/000095013706000977/filename1.htm
“The partners did not pay the tax liability at the time of the reorganization transaction because the Company and its external advisors felt there was a reasonable possibility of a favorable outcome. The Company and its external advisors believed the tax positions related to the restructuring transactions were appropriate and supportable under local tax law and the Company intends to defend, as needed, tax positions taken by the partners. A favorable outcome is still possible through either issues not being identified on audit by tax authorities, a successful defense of the position, or expiration of the statute of limitations, so it is not appropriate to pay the tax liability at the time of the transaction, or at any time, unless administrative and legal processes have concluded and resulted in an actual unfavorable outcome.”
In page 16 of the "NOTICE OF THE 2010 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS"
( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1467373/000119312509251604/dpre14a.htm ) is stated:

"Senior Executive Tax Costs
The Company has informed approximately 2,500 of our senior executives that if the senior executive reported for tax purposes the transactions involved in connection with our transition to a corporate structure in 2001, the Company will, in certain circumstances, provide a legal defense to that individual if his or her reporting position is challenged by the relevant tax authority. In the event such a defense is unsuccessful, and the senior executive is then subject to extraordinary financial disadvantage, the Company will review such circumstances for that individual and find an appropriate way to avoid severe financial damage to that individual."

In the newspaper el Mundo there was informed that Accenture (and therefore all shareholders) have paid 110 million euros, plus the penalty related with the unpaid taxes of the 100 Spanish Partners in 2001 reestructuring.
http://www.elmundo.es/mundodinero/2008/06/20/economia/1213922650.html
If now as declared there are 2500 senior executives that might be in the same situation, it is stright forward to have a direct correlation of the possible personal tax impact on former senior executives that Accenture is commenting it might be paid by the company and therefore by all Accenture shareholders.

Which ethical standards are higher, Mr. Wood's or Accenture's?

Anonymous said...

mi auto insurance quotes car insurance california

Anonymous said...

cheap auto insurance