Holiday Ticket Gift

Question to Ask the Prof: I asked around for sports tickets right before the holidays, willing to pay for them to give as a gift. None came through and as a result, I bought tickets to an away game for the person as they were the only reasonably priced alternative. Now a supplier has sent me free tickets, to a home game, as he was away when I asked and just got the email. Should I return the tickets or use them myself?

A (Professor Barbato): You should explain to the supplier that your friend no longer needs the tickets and give him the option of reclaiming them, selling them to you, or giving them to you.

It’s a Gas

Question to Ask the Prof: My car was damaged and the insurance company agreed to pay for the rental of a car while mine was being fixed. When I arrived there were no rental cars available, even though I had a confirmed reservation. I waited 30 minutes for my car, but it was a gas guzzling pickup truck instead of the sedan that I was promised. I told the agent I was not satisfied with the service or the truck, and she told me that I could return the truck with an empty tank of gas. That seemed fair and I felt more satisfied, but now I realize that I will be doing very little driving during this time, and I will probably return the truck with an almost full tank of gas. I could use the truck for a trip that my wife and I will be taking, but I’d rather use her fuel efficient car. Would it be unethical for me to siphon the gas into my wife’s car?


A (Professor Palanski): One relevant question is: what are you actually buying when you buy a tank of gas? Gas really does not have much value in and of itself – instead its value is comprised of the ability to operate a vehicle for a certain amount of time and distance.  A good-faith understanding of the rental car representative’s offer was to prevent you from suffering any undue financial hardship because you had to drive a gas guzzler instead of a more fuel-efficient car.  In effect, s/he was not giving you a tank of gas, but instead saving you from having to pay more than you normally would for your gas.

Changing the Rules Mid Bid

Question to Ask the Prof: I work for a medium sized company that tells it’s employees that ethics and fair treatment of others are core values. Recently the company has been encouraging project managers to change the typical way projects are bid out. Under the new scenario a project is put out for bid. Once the bids are received and bidding is closed, the project leader is encouraged to go back to some of the bidders (including the lowest bidder) and try to get new lower bids by using phrases like, “Your bid was very close to bidder x, do you think you can do any better?” This just feels wrong to me. I thought bids were meant to be final offers by bidders and that each bidder should not have an indication of competitive bids. Am I way off base here? Thanks in advance.

A (Professor Barbato): Fairness is an ethical principle, so a company should treat bidders fairly.  If the bidders have a reasonable expectation that the company will contract with the low bidder, then it is not fair to squeeze the bidder further after the bidder reveals how low he is willing to go.  This is not dealing in good faith.

Save the Date – David Cay Johnston Oct 3rd

The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use “Plain English” to Rob You Blind

David Cay Johnston

Recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, an IRE Medal and the George Polk Award

October 3rd at 4pm-5pm, book signing to follow

Golisano Hall, Building 70, Room 1400



Event Cosponsored by the Institute for Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility and Clarence B. Sheffield, Jr., the Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking

Unethical Tutor?

Question to Ask the Prof: Hello, I have a complex question so please bear with me. I am in a mentor-student relationship with an established individual in my industry. We have private tutoring sessions, for which I pay him (this is not uncommon in my field.) I have made vast improvements in my work in this field, in which my tutor’s support has been invaluable. Recently my tutor asked if I wanted to help out on a project with an ex-student of his, a person who I assumed was in a similar position to mine. I said yes, and began to help this person. After I’d done about half the work, my tutor suggested we meet together to discuss the results and it was then I found out my tutor and his student have a professional relationship and that this project would benefit them both financially. I felt betrayed but couldn’t object due to the high position of my tutor (it could potentially affect my young career). The tutor encouraged me to get help with my own project from his ex-student so the arrangement would be “mutually beneficial” but my project is in the beginning stages and has no professional prospects so it isn’t beneficial in the same way. Did my tutor cross an ethical line despite offering a “work exchange” between his ex-student and myself?


Answer (Professor Barbato): This is pretty vague, and without more specifics and details it’s hard to know if the tutor crossed a line, stepped on a line or toed a line.  Since you learned about the arrangement in a meeting with all concerned, it doesn’t look like anyone is trying to hide anything.  That’s a good sign.  I’m more troubled that you feel you can’t object, because you feel the tutor might retaliate.  That’s not a good sign.

Corporate Governance and CSR

Question to Ask the Prof: What is the relationship between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility?

Answer (Professor Zhang): In finance, the goal of a corporation is to maximize its shareholders’ value. However, the corporation is typically run by professional managers who have their self-interest. The goal of managers is to maximize their own benefits. In finance, the so-called corporate governance means shareholders use various mechanisms to align managers’ interest with shareholders’ and to prevent managers from engaging in self-dealing activities. Corporate governance mechanisms include board of directors, equity-based compensation, shareholder activism, etc.  In sum, corporate governance mechanisms are designed to protect the benefits of shareholders.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not necessary consistent with the value-maximization goal of a corporation, although more recent studies show that good-CSR firms have good firm performance. Professor Hull and Rothenberg’s SMJ paper (i.e., Hull and Rothenberg, 2008) is related to this issue. CSR emphasizes the benefits of various stakeholders (not only shareholders).

Taken together, if we argue that CSR means firms should act responsibly to all stakeholders, then good corporate governance means firms should act responsibly to one type of stakeholders, i.e., shareholder. In this sense, we may argue that corporate governance is a dimension of CSR.

Ask the Prof: Was the renter unethical?

Question to Ask the Prof:

I went to view an apartment that I was interested in renting. The owner showed me around and I told him I really liked it. He then gave me an application form and asked me to fill it in and email it to him. This was at about 4:30 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. I called the owner at 8:30 a.m. the following morning to let him know that I was emailing the application, and he told me that someone else had come after me and paid a deposit in cash to secure the apartment. I was very disappointed as the apartment was just what I was looking for and I had been searching for weeks. I suspect the owner’s business practices were unethical but want to hear a professional opinion. He gave no indication to me that an immediate payment was an option to provisionally secure the apartment but simply indicated that I should fill out an application. The owner justified his decision to me by explaining that people often view an apartment and express an interest one never hears from them again; therefore he had no choice but to accept when someone pulled out cash on the spot. I believe there is an accepted “first come first serve” convention whereby a tenant who has expressed an interest in renting a property gets at least 24 hours of first priority. Given that I had viewed the place first and strongly indicated my interest verbally, I believe the owner should have at least called me to say that if I wasn’t prepared to commit myself immediately, he would have to give it to someone else. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thank you.


Answer (Professor Barbato):

The owner didn’t do anything unethical, and there is no convention or code that says he or she should place a 24 hour moratorium on the rental of the apartment every time someone expresses interest.  You are not seeing this from the point of view of the owner.  You want him to tell an interested party that he won’t know if the apartment is available until he first checks with you?  Does this seem fair to you?  And what is your obligation?  I’m sorry you didn’t get the apartment you wanted, but I think you know what to do the next time you see an apartment that you really want.

IBESR co-sponsors media critic and activist Jennifer L. Pozner at the 2013 Power your Potential

Ethical Tax Advice

Question to Ask the Prof:

Under any professional codes of conduct, does a CPA have an obligation (ethical , moral or otherwise) to advise a long-term client ( then 97 years old), that the taxpayer is NOT required to file a Federal (nor State) Tax return? Or alternatively, would it be more ethical and proper for the CPA to recommend to this taxpayer to utilize a FREE tax prep service provided by the IRS VITA program for exactly this scenario. background: for at least the prior 22 years, the (recently deceased) taxpayer had (only) tax returns prepared by the CPA in question. Recently, (over at least the prior 7 tax years) the taxpayers annual income was always less than the federal poverty level (excluding S.S. benefits; none being taxable). So, those recent tax returns all report $0.00 taxable income (Federal & State). According to the the State and IRS 1040 instructions (Chart A), this aged taxpayer clearly was NOT required to file income tax returns. But, the CPA continued to file these unnecessary returns and collect preparation fees.


A (Professor Dresnack): This violates the American Institute of CPAs’ Code of Professional Conduct. The standard involving client advocacy states:

“…there is a possibility that some requested professional services involving client advocacy may appear to stretch the bounds of performance standards, may go beyond sound and reasonable professional practice, or may compromise credibility, and thereby pose an unacceptable risk of impairing the reputation of the member and his or her firm with respect to independence, integrity, and objectivity. In such circumstances, the member and the member’s firm should consider whether it is appropriate to perform the service.

The AICPA is a voluntary organization, so its rules primarily apply to members, but some of its rules have been adopted into law by various states.

In NY, licensed CPAs are prohibited from engaging in “unprofessional conduct,” which includes “exercising undue influence on the patient or client, including the promotion of the sale of services, goods, appliances or drugs in such manner as to exploit the patient or client for the financial gain of the practitioner or of a third party.”  (Rules of the Board of Regents).

It’s clear from this that at a minimum this violates ethics (AICPA) and probably violates law (Board of Regents).  To me it is obviously immoral.


A (Professor Zhang): The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Tax Consultants states that the tax consultants should “maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity and confidentiality in all relationships with clients, keeping as the utmost concerns the client’s best interest.” In a word, the behavior stated in the first issue was not in the client’s best interest and thus should be unethical.

How do I explain the carpenter is getting screwed?

Question to Ask the Prof: I need to explain to a company why what they are doing is unethical. My company was hired by an interior designing company to install cabinets in their client’s kitchen. Our carpenter was asked to remove their clients’ appliances, which never was discussed prior? During the removal carpenter realized these high end appliances were built-ins. This means special brackets and trim kits (case / metal box to house appliances with front flat trim showing) were installed into existing cabinetry before the actual units were installed. Unknowing my carpenter tried to remove the entire unit (i.e. microwave) as 1 piece. When the microwave came lose 2 bottom brackets broke, the momentum of those brackets breaking our carpenter fell back with microwave/convection oven fell to the floor. To replace the microwave is $969. Designer decides since the microwave is broken & we’re going to replace it. They can just get all upgraded appliances. We told them we are not going to pay the $831.00 difference for an $1800 for upgrade. The microwave is from 1998 & parts to repair it are no longer available. I spoke to corporate ofc of GE & they said the comparable which the exact model form 1998, just a few new features $969 if it were available. That one was discontinued in 2000. After researching I found the exact unit in California. My issue is that the interior design company is deducting my carpenter’s paycheck for a totally unrelated job. We submitted a claim to our insurance company & they will mail them a check for the $969 that is the cost of this unit if I wanted to buy it today & if it were available. The insurance will not pay $1800 for a microwave that is not comparable to microwave client purchased in 1998. Help me explain how unethical it is to take money from our carpenter’s check. Especially when this check had nothing to do with this accident & our insurance is sending them a check to pay for the unit he broke. How can I explain to the designer our carpenter should have been in the meeting when designer & client decided they will take the money from his paycheck? Please help. This company is also deducting his check for a scratch that one of their client claims our carpenter made. Our carpenter did not do this & there were several people in the room after the custom top addition to existing credenza was installed. The scratch was not there when everyone left. But the next day the client said our carpenter scratched the top of credenza. So in good faith, our carpenter & designer offered to have it repaired; the client refused repair. This to me is a Big Red flag, my theory is the client wanted to check out the custom top addition top & when he moved it he scratched the top of the credenza. So here we go again the designer met with their client & they decided that a 10% refund is fair which is $1850.72 & will designer will deduct 5% from carpenters check, since they really can’t prove he did it & to be fair we will take $925.36 from him. Again this was never discussed with the carpenter or his office. The scratch 10% of the refund for what clients’ custom made top has nothing to do with check that the designer is deductions from. Anyway our insurance is mailing them a check. Our Carpenter needs his paycheck these designers think that his hard earned $ is up for grabs, just because they met with client & decided, that makes it okay. It’s not okay & it not just unethical it is illegal. I am calling attorney in the morning. Also to explain how unethical it is not to include our carpenter in the meeting where a decision was being made regarding his paycheck. Nor was anything ever in writing or sign by all 3 parties to state an agreement had been reached & all parties agree. This to me is blatant robbery at the finest of white color junctions. So unethical and demeaning to a carpenter that does incredible & pristine work. He is as honest as they come. I am at a loss for words. Please help me explain this unethical behavior to this interior deigning firm. Thanks.

A (Professor Barbato): You are asking how best to construct an argument that explains the unfair treatment the carpenter is receiving.  The best way to do this is to simply explain that replacing the damaged microwave with a model of comparable value is fair.  It is not fair to expect a replacement that is of higher cost and higher value.  If they refuse to accept that argument, then the best thing to do is use the justice system to ensure that the carpenter is treated fairly.  It sounds like he is already doing that.