| Course | AC499 Bachelor's Capstone in Accounting |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Ethics decision response |
| Length | About 780 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC499 Unit 7
A $35 Contingency and a Brother-in-Law's Mill: A Unit 7 Capstone Ethics Decision Response
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC499: Bachelor's Capstone in Accounting
Unit 7 Ethics Decision Response
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Kettle Hollow Sauna Works, its officers and every figure are composite; the code, statement and textbook cited are real.
Memorandum
To: File, with copy to the Chief Executive Officer From: Controller, Kettle Hollow Sauna Works Date: December 3, 2026 Re: Requested change to the stave set costing analysis
Facts
The Unit 4 analysis found that milling 800 peak stave sets on a second profiling line would cost $84,000 a year less than buying them, with a net present value of $159,083 at 9 percent over ten years. On November 30 the chief executive asked me to add a quality contingency of $35 to every in-house set before the analysis goes to the board. Over 800 sets and ten years, that contingency has a present value of $179,694, which turns the line's net present value to a loss of $20,611. Any contingency above about $31 a set reverses the recommendation.
The case file holds no reject data for either option. Nobody ever produced the outside mill's reject figures, although the Unit 2 plan asked for them, and the company's own line has no history of scrap above its standard allowance.
The outside mill, Chippewa Valley Millwork, is owned by the chief executive's brother-in-law. The board has not been told.
The Standard
I belong to the national CPA institute and work in industry, so the part of its Code of Professional Conduct for members in business applies to me. The governing rule is the Integrity and Objectivity Rule, which asks a member to stay free of conflicts, to avoid knowingly stating facts falsely and to keep personal judgment from being overridden by someone else's wishes (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2014). The Institute of Management Accountants' statement points the same way, requiring that information be reported fairly and objectively and that conflicts be disclosed (Institute of Management Accountants, 2017).
Options
Option 1: Add the contingency with a footnote. The board would see a recommendation to buy from the outside mill, with a footnote saying a $35 contingency was added at management's request. This is the easier path. It fails the rule, because the footnote would accompany a figure I know has no support, and the recommendation it changes would favor a supplier connected to the person who asked.
Option 2: Decline the contingency. The analysis goes to the board as prepared. If reject data later supports a quality cost, I will add it and say where it came from.
A quality adjustment would be a legitimate estimate if any evidence supported it, so the problem is not the number itself but that it has no source and that the only party who benefits from it is related to the person requesting it.
Decision and Sequence
I will decline the change. The sequence matters, because going over someone's head first removes their chance to correct course (Mintz & Morris, 2020).
First, I will meet the chief executive this week. My script: "I can't add a contingency we have no data for. If you have reject figures from either option, I will put them in and cite them. I also think the board should hear about the family connection to Chippewa Valley before it votes, and it would be better coming from you."
Second, if the chief executive does not disclose the relationship to the board before the December meeting, I will tell the chair of the finance committee, in writing, that the analysis was prepared without the requested contingency and that a related-party relationship affects one option.
Why Disclosure Comes Before Analysis
The relationship matters even if the chief executive's request were reasonable. A board deciding between two suppliers is entitled to know that one of them is tied to an officer, because that knowledge changes how much weight it should give to the officer's views. Nothing in the case suggests the brother-in-law's mill is a poor supplier, and the analysis does not claim so. The ethical problem is the combination of an undisclosed interest and an unsupported number that would favor it. Disclosure fixes the first part on its own, which is why the script asks the chief executive to make it.
What the Decision Costs
The decision may strain my working relationship with the chief executive, and it may delay the board vote by one meeting. It does not cost the company money: the analysis as prepared favors the cheaper option. I will keep a dated record of the request, this memo and the meeting.
References
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2014). AICPA code of professional conduct. AICPA.
Institute of Management Accountants. (2017). IMA statement of ethical professional practice. IMA.
Mintz, S. M., & Morris, R. E. (2020). Ethical obligations and decision making in accounting: Text and cases (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Reading the AC 499 Unit 7 instructions
The seventh AC499 unit asks you to respond to an ethics scenario as the accountant in the case. Set out the facts with amounts, including how the request would change your earlier analysis and what evidence exists for it. State any relationship that creates a conflict. Name the professional standard that governs you, narrowly, and explain why it applies to your role. Weigh at least two options against that standard. Make a decision and explain the sequence of people you will speak to, with your reasons for the order. Include what you will say. Close with what the decision may cost you and the company and how you will document it. Cite the AICPA Code, the IMA statement where relevant and an accounting ethics text in APA 7.
Inside the AC499 Unit 7 example
The sample uses memo form dated December 3, 2026. The facts section shows the $35 request, its $179,694 present value, the reversal to a $20,611 loss and the roughly $31 threshold, then notes that no reject data exists. The relationship is stated in one sentence. The standard section applies the members-in-business Integrity and Objectivity Rule, supported by the IMA statement. Two options are weighed, a footnoted contingency and a refusal, and the highlighted sentence separates a supported estimate from an unsupported one. A section explains why disclosure matters on its own. The decision follows with a short script for the chief executive and a fallback to the finance committee chair, and a closing section lists the costs and the record kept.
AC499 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
AC499 ethics responses are graded on accurate facts, a correctly applied standard and a decision that can be carried out. Points go to responses that quantify the request's effect on earlier work and state what evidence exists. Graders expect the standard named precisely, applied to the student's role, rather than a list of every principle in the Code. Options should be weighed honestly, including the easier one. The decision earns credit when it comes with a sequence, a script and a reason for the order. Responses that moralize without deciding, or that escalate before speaking to the person involved, lose points. A memo layout and APA 7 references to both codes round out the response.
AC499 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak Unit 7 responses summarize the scenario without amounts, so the stakes are never clear. Many cite every ethics principle at once instead of the one that decides the case. Options are presented as one right and one obviously wrong, with no real weighing. The decision is stated but not acted on: no script, no order of conversations, no record. Some responses go straight to the board, removing the chance for the person involved to correct course. Others accuse the executive of fraud. If your section's scenario differs, our writers can apply the governing standard to your facts and build the decision and sequence around them.
Get an AC499 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Paste your ethics scenario exactly as issued, say which professional code governs the course, then attach the earlier figures the scenario touches with the Unit 7 rubric. The response applies one standard to those facts, makes a decision, names who is told first and states what the decision costs. No charge for the first sample; 24-48h is usual. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC499 papers and BS in Accounting samples
- AC499 Unit 1: Capstone Integration Discussion
- AC499 Unit 2: Capstone Case Scoping Plan
- AC499 Unit 3: Statement Rebuild Package
- AC499 Unit 4: Make or Buy Costing Decision
- AC499 Unit 5: Corporate Tax Position Brief
- AC499 Unit 6: Control Weakness Assessment
- AC499 Unit 8: Seminar Draft Review
- AC499 Unit 9: Integrated Final Report
- AC499 Unit 10: Recommendation Presentation
- AC112 Unit 7: Ratio Interpretation Memo
- AC468 Unit 7: Forensic Timeline Reconstruction
- AC114 Unit 7: Financial Statement Preparation
- AC466 Unit 7: Disclosure Note Analysis
AC499 Unit 7 questions, answered
Does the AICPA Code apply to an accountant working inside a company?
Yes, to members. The Code has a part for members in business, and the Integrity and Objectivity Rule applies there. The composite controller in this sample is an AICPA member, which the response states. Where your scenario involves someone who is not a member, the sample says so and relies on the code your course assigns, often the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice.
Why tell the chief executive before the finance committee?
Because the executive made the request and can still withdraw it and disclose the relationship. Going over someone's head first removes that chance and usually hardens the conflict. The response gives the executive a dated window that closes before the board meeting, and names the finance committee chair as the next person told if nothing has been disclosed by then.
Would a supported quality adjustment be acceptable?
Yes, and the response says so. If reject data showed a second shift producing more scrap, adding that cost would be a legitimate estimate. What makes the requested figure a problem is that nothing supports it and it happens to exceed the exact threshold that reverses the decision. The distinction is evidence, not the direction of the adjustment.
Where can I find a free AC499 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC499 Unit 7 ethics decision response for Kettle Hollow Sauna Works with the request quantified, the AICPA rule applied, two options weighed, a decision with a script and APA 7 references.
At what contingency does the recommendation reverse?
At about $31 a stave set. The second line's net present value of $159,083, spread over ten years at 9 percent and 800 sets a year, equals roughly $31 a set, so any unsupported contingency above that turns the line into a loss.