Dr. Jasso's Sarbanes-Oxley Article

Milton Friedman’s shareholder theory of management says that the purpose of a business is to make money for the owner or the stockholders of the business. Friedman says that there is only one social responsibility for the business: to use its resources in order to increase

The 1990s and the early 2000s was a time that the world witness an explosion of fraud in the corporate world. Corporate fraud like Enron, HealthSouth, Waste Management, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, etc. was so disturbing that lawmakers felt the need for a law to help curb down these frauds. Lawmakers came out with Sarbanes Oxley named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Rep. Michael G. Oxley, the co-sponsors of the act. The purpose of this essay is to discuss some of the tax advantages and disadvantages of Sarbanes-Oxley and to explore whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for small businesses as well as the tax benefits for those businesses.

According to the research by Cornerstone Research in 2007, they found that some legal experts credit the SOX Act and tougher enforcement to the drop in lawsuits which they believe is a positive effect of less fraud. According to the study, the number of lawsuits dropped from about two-hundred-twenty-five in 2002 to about sixty lawsuits in 2007. These are astonishing numbers yet prove that there have been excellent results from the implementation of the SOX

Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law which was introduced in 2002. It is also known as the “Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act” and “and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act”. The main objective of the act is to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures. New aspects are created by SOX act for corporate accountability as well as new penalties for wrong doings. It was basically introduced after major corporate and accounting scandals including the scandals of Enron, WorldCom etc so that the same kind of scandals do not repeat again.

Following a number of discovered fraud scandals committed by well-known corporations and in order to restore public confidence in the stock market and trading of securities, the United States congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the year 2002. As a result of the act endorsement by the New York Stock Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission, among many other national overseeing committees, a number of rules and regulations were proposed and adopted and that demanded new processes and programs be instilled for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the new law. The new rules and regulations pertaining to the enacted law have a common goal:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 was implemented to deter fraudulent activities amongst companies by monitoring and auditing financial activities as well as set up internal controls to aid in the safeguard of company funds and investor’s interest. SOX also regulates the non-audit tax services (NATS) that can be performed by an auditing firm. SOX was passed by Congress in 2002 in an attempt to address the unethical behaviors of corporate firms such as Enron, WorldCom, Sunbeam, and others (Raabe, Whittenburg, Sanders, & Sawyers, 2015). Raabe et al. (2015) continues explaining that SOX was created in response to the inadequacies

The Sarbanes Oxley Act is an act passed by the United States Congress to protect investors from the possibility of fraudulent accounting activities by corporation. The Sarbanes Oxley Act has strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and accounting fraud. The acts goals are designed to ensure that publicly traded corporations document what financial controls they are using and they are certified in doing so. The Sarbanes Oxley Act sets the highest level and most general requirements but it imposes the possibility of criminal penalties for corporate financial officers. The Sarbanes Oxley Act sets provisions that are used throughout numerous amounts of corporations. It holds companies to a larger responsibility and a higher standard with accounting principles and the accuracy of financial statements.

The act identifies and assigns accountability to those who knowingly falsify documents and it clearly states the consequences for acting outside the defined standard, relating to corporate governance. Using case studies we will review how the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is helping to standardized a code of conduct and how it has increased the awareness of corporate responsibility. First, we will review the definitions of corporate governance, business ethics and corporate responsibility. Next, we will examine the effectiveness of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, through a case study and identify possible challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley Act may face, as public demand for social responsibility increases. Finally, we will review proactive recommendations for provisions to key titles of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These provisions will accommodate the growing public demand for ethical and social responsibility.

Most people agree that the SOX Act provides the most comprehensive amendments to the 33 and 34 Acts in United State history. Due to the stricter financial law from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, other international countries have adopted similar laws such as Australia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Africa, and Turkey to help with it came to financial reporting. The SOX Act have 11 mandate and requirement for corporations to report their financial statements. The following are the 11madate titles and requirement under the Sarbanes-Oxley

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was passed by U.S congress in 2002 to protect investors from fraudulent accounting activities by corporations. Whether the organization is big or small, the act mandates strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations, helping to prevent accounting fraud. It is a federal law that established new and expanded requirements for all U.S. public company boards, management, public accounting firm's, as well as privately held companies. SOX requires top management individually certify the accuracy of financial information, and includes penalties for fraudulent financial activity. The bill was enacted in response to a large number of major corporate and accounting scandals the cost of investors

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passes in 2002 in response to a handful of large corporate scandals that occurred between the years 2000 to 2002, resulting in the losses of billions of dollars by investors. Enron, Worldcom and Tyco are probably the most well known companies that were involved in these scandals, but there were a number of other companies guilty of such things as well. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed as a way to crackdown on corporations by setting new and improved standards that all United States’ public companies and accounting firms were and are required to abide by. It also works to hold top level executives accountable for the company, and if fraudulent behaviors are discovered then the executives could find themselves in hot water. The punishments for such fraudulence could be as serious as 20 years jail time. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The primary motivation for the act was to prevent future scandals from happening, or at least, make it much more difficult for them to happen. The act was also passed largely to protect the people—the shareholders—from corporations, their executives, and their boards of directors. Critics tend to argue that the act is to complicated, and costs to much to abide by, leading to the United States losing its “competitive edge” in the global marketplace (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The Sarbanes-Oxley act, like most things, has its pros and cons. It is costly; studies have shown that this act has cost companies millions of

Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley created the act to keep businesses from producing false financial documents just to get investors to invest into the company because it appears that the business is doing very well. Companies like Enron under this new act couldn’t produce the false accounting statements without first having an auditor coming in and checking over the inventories or book keeping data. Now investors can relax a little more and not worry that the financial statements are falsified or are generalized and rounded up to make the company look good. Investors can trust that the auditors are doing their job and verifying the books and data for those companies.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence.   In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting.   Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a

Some business leaders are taking good moral decisions and the reason behind that idea is that the core part of their business strategy is to create mutual benefit for both wider society and business as well. The growing desire of top management is to find out ways to create mutual benefit for both the organizations and the stake holders but the public still believes that companies are greedy entities which make decisions only in their self-interest, even at the cost of greater public welfare. It is the utmost obligation of the companies to discern the social issues while making the decisions (Yashiro, Yoshida and Suzuki, no date; Godwin, 2006; Schwab, 1996; Godwin, 2008; Werhane, 1998; Werhane, 2002; Heath, 2008; Mehalik and Gorman, 2006).

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted into law in 2002 in the wake of corporation financial reporting scandals involving large publicly held companies. SOX instituted new strict financial regulations with the intent of improving accounting practices and protecting investors from corporate misconduct. SOX requires corporate executives to vouch for the accuracy of financial statements, and to institute and monitor effective internal controls over financial reporting. The cost of implementing an effective internal control structure are onerous, and SOX inflicts opportunity costs upon an enterprise as executives have