Dear Paul Panther,
Your memo was exceedingly comprehensive concerning the legal obligations involved in your case study. You evaluated the implication from both the view of participants and the guiding laws. However, your presentation lacked legal authority and emerged as your private authority. You implored objective statements such as the provisions of the law. However, you were not specific on which clauses, articles or statutes of the insinuated law were under reference (Law & Mills, 2015). As a result, your memo manifested weaknesses in supportive structures such as referred authorities. Presenting legal arguments void of supportive authorities presents a sense of vagueness in their impact or attached suggestions. As a result, your memo had little impact on decision-making or offering the desired informative input when describing its purpose.
The implication of legal presentation on matters of finance involves manifesting confidence in the presentations. In your memo, the confidence level of enforcement materialized from the author’s edge. There was little effort aimed at supporting the illustrated knowledge regarding the issues under evaluation. Unfortunately, your comprehension of the legal implication offers little confidence in the compliance of the suggested obligations since they rest under the imagination of your expertise (Scalia, 2018). Being unable to articulate the legal objectives under presentation properly poses dangerous outcomes to both the clients and the firm. In essence, the measure makes a crude overview of the potentials associated with legal translations.
Your explanations of the decisions arrived at in response to the proposed questions are quite brief to offer an adequate thought path guiding the attainment of the eventual outcome. As a result, the memo adopts an approach pointing to the decision as a common position shared across the industry. However, the central purpose of the memo was to offer decisions guided by insights from your perception regarding the implication of the law on the cases under reflection. As a result, your memo feels inadequate in supporting the primary purpose. There is a need to further explore the interests of your memo through the ambitions of your target audience (Law & Mills, 2015). Primarily, the expectations of your audience remain a distance from the prospective desire to achieve overviews of the arrived decisions. Instead, the audience anticipates engaging your opinion in developing a perception that advises their impression regarding the subjects under review. Therefore, your memo could benefit from advancement in the school of thought deployed in developing the analysis section.
Law, K. K., & Mills, L. F. (2015). Taxes and financial constraints: Evidence from linguistic cues. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(4), 777-819.
Scalia, A. (2018). A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law: Federal courts and the law. Princeton University Press.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Memo Feedback Instructions
You are the tax manager of Maximus & Smith CPA and have asked the two tax interns to prepare a research memo regarding the same client.
You provided each the same information about the client and are using this assignment as one of the indicators to help you decide which one to recommend for a full-time position. Review the following two research memos addressing the same question.
Prepare the feedback you would offer each intern including what changes you would make if any to each memo in order to improve it.
Have a similar assignment? "Place an order for your assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."