Mr. White (invested $20,000) and Mr. Black (invested $10,000) are in a partnership to run a marketing firm. They share profits and losses in the ratio of 2:1, which is also the ratio of their initial investment in the business. Mr. White manages the office but Mr. Black gets all of the contracts for the firm. It is his high profile that gets the contracts for the firm. At the end of the year, the firm has reported net income of $300,000, which was allocated in the ratio of 2:1, ($200,000 for Mr. White, and $100,000 for Mr. Black). On Dec 31, 20XX, Mr. Whites capital balance was $150,000 and Mr. Blacks capital balance was $100,000. Mr. White has withdrawn more cash from the business than his partner Mr. Black.
On Jan 15th, Mr. White discovered that the net income for the previous year was understated by $60,000. Mr. Black tells Mr. White that this net income of $60,000 should be shared in the proportion of their current capital balances. (Mr. White = 150,000/$250,000 = 60% = $36,000; Mr. Black = $100,000/$250,000 = 40% = $24,000). But Mr. White feels that the additional income should be shared in the ratio of 2:1 ($60,000 x 2/3 = $40,000 Mr. White; $60,000 x 1/3 = $20,000 Mr. Black). Who is correct? Why?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Analyzing Profit Distribution in a Partnership: A Case Study of Mr. White and Mr. Black
Introduction
Partnerships are often governed by agreements that dictate not only how profits and losses are shared but also how management responsibilities are allocated. This essay explores the case of Mr. White and Mr. Black, two partners in a marketing firm, to analyze the correct approach to distributing an understated net income of $60,000. By examining their investment contributions, profit-sharing ratios, and capital balances, we aim to determine who is correct—the management of the partnership or the financial integrity of their initial agreement.
Background Information
Mr. White invested $20,000 into the partnership, while Mr. Black invested $10,000, establishing a profit-sharing ratio of 2:1 based on their initial contributions. The firm reported a net income of $300,000 for the year, which they split according to their agreed-upon ratio—$200,000 for Mr. White and $100,000 for Mr. Black. However, upon discovering that the previous year’s net income was understated by $60,000, a dispute arose regarding how this additional income should be shared.
Current Capital Balances
– Mr. White’s Capital Balance: $150,000
– Mr. Black’s Capital Balance: $100,000
Proposed Distribution of Additional Income
– Mr. White’s Proposal: Share in the original profit-sharing ratio of 2:1.
– Mr. Black’s Proposal: Share based on current capital balances.
Analysis
Profit-Sharing Ratios
The fundamental principle of profit-sharing in partnerships is dictated by the partnership agreement unless otherwise stated. In this case, Mr. White argues that the additional income should follow the original profit-sharing ratio (2:1), reflective of their initial investment and agreement. This perspective aligns with traditional business practices where profit distribution is often anchored in the predetermined ratios agreed upon by partners.
Capital Contributions and Current Balances
Conversely, Mr. Black’s argument for distributing the additional income based on their current capital balances reflects a more modern approach to partnership equity. The capital balance method emphasizes each partner’s current stake in the business rather than the original investment ratios, acknowledging any withdrawals or additional contributions made during the fiscal year.
In this case:
– Total Capital = $150,000 + $100,000 = $250,000
– Mr. White’s Share Based on Capital: 60% of $60,000 = $36,000
– Mr. Black’s Share Based on Capital: 40% of $60,000 = $24,000
Ethical and Practical Considerations
It is critical to analyze not just the mathematical distribution but also the ethical implications of each argument. Allowing Mr. White to take a disproportionate share based on historical ratios could undermine trust in the partnership and discourage equitable business practices in future earnings.
Conclusion
While both Mr. White and Mr. Black present valid arguments regarding how to distribute the additional income, the most equitable resolution lies in adhering to the original profit-sharing agreement established at the beginning of their partnership. Therefore, Mr. White’s argument for distributing the additional income in the ratio of 2:1 aligns with both traditional practices and the ethical considerations of partnership dynamics.
In conclusion, it is paramount for partnerships to maintain consistency with their agreements while being mindful of changes in capital contributions and withdrawals. To promote fairness and prevent conflicts in future distributions, it may be beneficial for Mr. White and Mr. Black to revisit and possibly revise their partnership agreement to clearly delineate how such situations will be handled moving forward.
