Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320109599655

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI

TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] Date: 13 January 2016, At: 17:57

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

E-Commerce Advertising Accuracy: The Case for

Family Limited Partnerships

Anita Williams , Mike Waiters , Glendell Jones & Jennifer Lyons

To cite this article: Anita Williams , Mike Waiters , Glendell Jones & Jennifer Lyons (2001) E-Commerce Advertising Accuracy: The Case for Family Limited Partnerships, Journal of Education for Business, 76:6, 313-317, DOI: 10.1080/08832320109599655

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320109599655

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

E-Commerce Advertising Accuracy:

The Case for Family Limited

Partnerships

ANITA WILLIAMS

MIKE WATTERS

GLENDELL JONES

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Henderson State University

Arkadelphia, Arkansas

JENNIFER LYONS

Weyerhauser Corporation

Hot Springs, Arkansas

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

ccountants and attorneys increas-

A

ingly are using the Internet to secure new clients. Web sites may serve to educate potential clients on the basics of tax issues and at the same time pro- vide a means to advertise a firm’s prod- ucts, services, and expertise. In this study, we examined the quality of selected Internet Web page summaries. Specifically, we analyzed accountants’ and attorneys’ Web page summaries related to the topical area of family lim- ited partnerships (FLP). Our research sought to determine whether Web site summaries present an objective overview of the pros and cons of an FLP and whether the summaries are accu- rate, current, and otherwise free of errors. We chose FLPs as our review topic because recently they have become a popular-though somewhat controversial-area of tax planning. Thus, FLPs are likely to be of signifi- cant interest to taxpayers and tax and legal advisers and practitioners, and, therefore, a topic likely to be discussed on the Internet.

Brief Overview of FLPs

For those who are unfamiliar with FLPs, a limited partnership involves one or more general partners and one or more limited partners. The general part- ners manage and control the limited

ABSTRACT. Family limited partner- ships (FLPs) are a controversial estate and tax planning tool. For this study, we examined 42 Web sites of 34 attor- neys, 6 accountants, and 2 other sources that presented summaries of FLPs. Given that accountants and attorneys have accepted special oblig- ations to the public, we wanted to know whether those summaries pre- sented both advantages and disadvan- tages of FLPs and whether the infor- mation was both accurate and current. Only four Web sites presented a bal- anced, objective view of FLPs, and six contained one or more errors and/or untimely information.

partnership and its underlying assets, and the limited partners serve as passive investors who cannot participate in managing the limited partnership. FLPs occur when parents transfer assets to a partnership in exchange for general

( 1 %-5%)

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

and limited (95%-99%) part-

ner interests. Subsequently, the parents will make the limited partner interests lifetime gifts to their children and grandchildren, with any remaining own- ership interests being transferred at their death.

The effective result is removal of the assets from the estates of the general partners and discounted valuation of the underlying assets (Stephanson, 1999; Kautz, 1999). The FLP recently has regained popularity as a vehicle for potentially reducing estate and income

taxes and protecting assets. We provide a discussion of the major potential ben- efits and costs/risks, from the taxpayer’s perspective, associated with establish-

ing an FLP (Tax Alert, 1999).

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Reasons for

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Creating an FLP

FLPs may be created for several rea- sons: to provide for orderly succession in a family business, to avoid probate, to reduce income tax of the general part- ners, to reduce or eliminate gift and estate taxes, asset protection, to shift income from high parental brackets to lower brackets of children, to maintain centralized control of assets, and to involve younger family members in business operations without yielding control over the underlying assets. However, the FLPs contain certain risks and disadvantages. If the IRS decides that the FLP has no legitimate business purpose, it can disregard the entity. The FLP is usually a component of complex estate planning and requires competent and expensive tax and legal advice and tax preparation.. Ownership interests of FLPs are not marketable and therefore are illiquid unless the assets are cash and marketable securities, which do not qualify for large valuation discounts, thus eliminating or reducing tax advan- tages. In addition, some states levy fees

and taxes on FLPs.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

JulylAugust

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2001 31

3

Tax Issues Related to FLPs

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

In 1999, a $650,000 estate tax exemption in the form of $265,000 tax

credit was allowed (IRC

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

$8

2001(c) and

2010 (c)). The present interest annual exclusion allows a person to give up to $10,000 per year per donee without incurring a gift tax liability (IRC $2503 (b)). Additionally, married couples may elect to split gifts, resulting in the mari- tal unit being able to give $20,000 per year per donee. Currently, the present interest annual exclusion is being indexed for inflation.

The heart of FLPs is their ability to reduce the parents’ estate tax. The estate

tax is a

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

tax on the fair market value of all

assets owned by individuals at their death. The FLP alleviates this potentially harsh result by allowing persons to manipulate the amount of assets owned at their death. Usually, this result is accom- plished by giving the assets to a younger generation in a manner that qualifies the gifts for the present interest annual exclu- sion. For example, let us assume that Fred and Betty, age 65, have four chil- dren and $2 million in total assets. They transfer assets worth $1 million to a FLP.

In return, they receive a 1 %

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

general part-

ner interest and a 99% limited partner interest. Presumably, the general partner interest is worth $10,000, and the limited partner interests have a value of $990,000. Subsequently, the limited part- ner interests are given to the children over a period of 5 years. Fred and Betty effec- tively have removed $990,000 in value from their estate, which will not be sub- ject to the estate tax. The IRS will respect the transfers provided that the FLP has a bona fide purpose.

However, this scenario produces a gift tax problem because Fred and Betty have given $198,000 to the children each year, but only $80,000 ($20,000

per child, per year) qualifies for the pre- sent interest annual exclusion. A com- panion to the estate tax, the gift tax, is

imposed on the value

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of all assets trans-

ferred during the donor’s lifetime. Seemingly, Fred and Betty would have to pay a gift tax on $1 18,000 ($198,000 less $80,000) each year. Fred and Betty would argue that they transferred less than $198,000 in value each year. Their theory is that the fair market value of the

limited partner interests transferred should be adjusted, downward, to reflect marketability and minority inter- est discounts. Marketability discounts arise because the limited partner inter- ests are not marketable given that no market exists for the interests. Minority interest discounts arise because the lim- ited partners do not control the entity and do not have a voice in managing the FLP (IRC $32701-2704). The theory

underlying these discounts is that

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

an

unrelated buyer would not pay the pre- sumed fair market value of the limited partner interests under these circum- stances. Courts have awarded various discounts to taxpayers over the years; however, each case is viewed indepen- dently and rests upon its own facts and circumstances. Valuation discounts are the major battleground for taxpayers and the IRS when FLPs are used to

avoid or alleviate the estate and gift tax.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Literature Review

The relevant literature is sparse. Much has been written about e-commerce and online advertising, but little has been written on the content or accuracy of related material posted on professional Web sites. Much has been written about FLPs, but the present study is not really about them. Gruman (1999), in a brief article, discussed editorial integrity in e- commerce. The Federal Trade Commis- sion (2000) wrote that any rule that it has made regarding “written,” “printed,” or “direct mail” applies equally to new tech- nologies, and it has written detailed rules governing advertising on the Web.

Winker et al. (2000) wrote about guide- lines for medical and health information Web sites and discussed quality assess- ments. Though their discussion is specif- ic to medical sites and issues peculiar to them, they provide some fundamental principles for assessing quality of con- tent-“authorship, attribution, and dis- closure”; currency; separation of adver- tising and editorial content; and so forth-that are very much in line with FTC guidelines.

Given that accountants and attorneys have accepted special obligations to the public, we wanted to know whether both advantages and disadvantages of FLPs were presented in the Web sites of accountants and attorneys and whether the information was both accurate and current. To that end, we scrutinized the Web sites for (a) number of advantages and disadvantages, if any, presented; (b) whether the information conformed to the tax code then in effect; and (c) in cases in which a “date last updated” was given, whether it was recent. These characteristics are the most important, though we note others (see Table 1).

Method

We used the string “Family Limited Partnership” to initiate a search for related information contained on the Internet. We defined the population as all practicing attorneys and accountants with Web sites that included a presenta- tion of information related to FLP

income tax regulations. During Febru-

ary 1999, using the search enginedpor- tals YAHOO, LYCOS, EXCITE and

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the Web Summaries

No.“

Length of FLP information (Web pages) Average length (Web pages)

Links to other sites (number out of 42)

Art work, graphics, photos used (number out of 42)

Web summaries containing text only (number out of 42)

Phone number, e-mail or postal address identified (number out of 42) “Last date updated” indicated in Web summary (number out of 42) Firm name identified in Web summary (number out of 42)

Web summaries containing examples (number out of 42)

“Length and average length are in pages; all other measures are the number of Web sites, having the characteristic.

1-12

3 32 13

29 15

3

42

39

out of 42.

31 4 Journal

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of Education for Business

SNAP.COM, we performed a key word search on family limited partnerships. We believed that these search engines/portals were the most compre- hensive ones for business and financial data at the time. The search engines returned a total of 42 usable and differ- ent practitioner Web sites that presented summaries of FLPs and that we could locate and analyze.’

Data were gathered regarding (a) the general observable characteristics of the Web page summary and the type of firm producing the summary, (b) the presen- tation of factual information concerning FLPs (i.e., whether a balanced view was presented in terms of pros and cons, and (c) the accuracy and currency of infor- mation presented in the summary. We took notes on the presence or absence of links, contact information, dates of modification, the presence or absence of graphics, the number of pages, and name and type of firm. We judged the presentations for a balanced view by whether or not disadvantages were pre- sented along with advantages and by how many of each were discussed. We judged accuracy by comparing the dis- cussions with the code then in effect, and currency by the date of last modifi-

cation on the site, if any.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Findings

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Web Page Characteristics

Of the 42 Web page sites analyzed, 34 were prepared by attorneys, 6 by accountants, and 2 by other sources. In Table 1, we identify several characteris- tics of the 42 Web page summaries. The number of pages discussing FLPs ranged from 1 to 12, with an average of 3 Web pages. About 70% presented links to other Web sites where clients could obtain more information. All f m s identified themselves by name; however, only 35% provided a phone number or an e-mail or postal address. Examples were presented in about 92% of the samples.

Presentation of Pros and Cons

In Tables 2 and

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

3, we present the

results of our analysis seeking to deter- mine the objectivity of the presentation

of information regarding FLPs. We were specifically interested in whether an unbiased summary of both pros and cons was presented. All of the 42 ana- lyzed Web page summaries identified benefits associated with FLP organiza- tion, but 10 of the 42 (24%) made no mention of the costs and risks associat- ed with FLP status. In Table 2, we sum- marize the benefits identified by the 42 Web summaries. Every summary identi- fied the potential benefit of FLP valua- tion discounts. The potential aggregate discounts identified in the Web sum- maries ranged from a low of 10% to a high of 60%. It could be argued that suggesting the availability of a 60% val- uation discount is an aggressive position to take.

A total of 32 (76%) summaries iden- tified at least one cost or potential risk along with the potential benefits of FLPs. In Table 3, we summarize the costs and risks identified by the 42 Web summaries. Only 13 identified IRS

scrutiny or challenge as a potential risk of FLP organization. Complexity and IRS scrutiny were the most frequently cited disadvantages. Only 4 (10%) dis- cussed the potential risks associated with placing into an FLP only mar- ketable securities in order to avoid or reduce estate/gift taxes (i.e., to decrease the potential for IRS scrutiny when lack of legitimate business purpose may be challenged). Only 7% of the Web sum- maries pointed out the disadvantage of “lack of liquidity” and the need for “annual reporting and fees and taxes.” Only 2% pointed out that laws could change.

Currency of Information

In Table 1, we include information about when the Web page summary was last updated. Two had not been updated in 8 to 10 months, and anoth- er was last updated in October 1997. Four other pages were based on infor-

TABLE 2. Advantages of FLP Identified in Web Summaries

Tax advantage

Web pages reporting

No.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

%

I

Availability of valuation discounts Estate tax savings

Gift tax savings

Asset protection from creditorsjlawsuits Centralized control

$10,000 annual exclusion

$650,000 assets protected by unified transfer credit Shift income to lower tax bracket

Facilitates management succession Promotes family harmony Flexibility

42 38 36 26 21 20 16 16

1 1

3 3

100 90 86 62

50

48 38 38 26

7

7

I 1

I

I

TABLE 3. Costs and Risks of FLP Identified in Web Summaries

I

I

Tax risk

Web pages reporting

No. %

I I IRS scrutiny or challenge (courtjlegal costs)

Complexity Fees to establish

Marketable security pitfall

Donees take low tax basis Annual reporting and feedtaxes Lack of liquidity

Fixed term

Laws could change

13 9

7

4 3 3 3 2

1

33 22

17

10 7 7

7

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

5

2

I 1

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

JulylAugust

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2001 31 5

mation that was 2-to-4-years old. This finding is interesting because of the importance placed on timely informa- tion and the potential client’s percep- tion that information rendered by the practicing accountant and attorney is current and timely. It would seem wise to display prominently on the first page of such summaries some notation of when the summary was last updat- ed. We believe that this would enhance the user’s confidence in the currency of the information presented if it is indeed current.

The data in Tables 2 and

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

3 suggest

that the authors of the pages focused more on discussing the benefits of FLPs than on the disadvantages. We felt that the Web page summaries in this study were biased toward presenting the posi- tive elements of FLPs while downplay- ing or ignoring the negative elements. It could be concluded that more emphasis was placed on selling a product than on informing the taxpayer. Still, this obser- vation applies only to the group of sum- maries analyzed in the aggregate. It should be noted that only four of the Web summaries, or less than lo%, seemed to provide a balanced, objective overview of both the pros and cons

related to FLP organization.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Accuracy

The last issue investigated was the accuracy of the information in terms of the tax laws and regulations in effect at the time of viewing the information. Seven of the Web page summaries were found to contain one or more errors and/or out-of-date information. For example, one summary erroneously noted that the annual gift tax exclusion was $1 3,000, compared with the correct amount of $10,000. The $13,000 amount was not discussed in connection with valuation discounts and may have been due to a typographical error. Seven summaries indicated that the amount of taxable gift or estate currently protected by the unified transfer tax credit was currently $600,000 or $625,000. Though these figures were correct for prior years, for 1999 the coverage was increased to $650,000. In other words, at the time of viewing, this information was inaccurate.

Discussion

Though the goal of using the Internet for advertising and securing new clients seems appropriate, it should not come at the expense of providing timely, accu- rate, and unbiased information on Web page summaries. Accountants and attor- neys, by their acceptance of their codes of ethics, have accepted the obligation to act in a way that will serve the public interest, broaden public confidence, and honor the public trust. Their codes of ethics require that they be held to a higher standard of conduct than ordi- nary advertisers. Specifically, the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct

ET Section 502 states the following: Advertising or other forms of solicitation that are false, misleading or deceptive are

not in the public interest and are prohibit- ed. Such activities include those that

1. Create false or unjustified expecta-

tions of favorable results.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

. . .

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

4. Contain any other representations

that would be likely to cause a reasonable

person to misunderstand or be deceived. (AICPA, 2000)

The FTC takes the position that

you can deceive a consumer by what you don’t say as well as what you do say. If

you omit information from your advertis-

ing and marketing that is material in light of the representations made in the ad, it

can be deceptive. (Peeler, 1995)

The ABA code of ethics is not readi- ly available, but examination of a state code (IN RE, 1999) based on it, as many if not most are, seems to indicate that it is not much different from the AICPA’s code or the FTC’s guidelines.

Professors of law and accounting should include discussions of profes- sional advertising in their classes that deal with ethics. In any class that deals with communication with clients/cus- tomers or potential clients/customers, the instructor should make clear that anything that represents the firm is worthy of close attention. Web pages are just as important as any other piece of advertising or public communica- tion; communication pieces represent the firm to the reader more than any- thing else. Sloppiness, errors, dated material, and other defects do not serve any firm well. When clients or poten- tial clients discover that Web pages are

in error, out of date, or biased, their confidence in the firm may be dam- aged. Web advertising, therefore, should not be treated as an after- thought. Indeed, if one is to install a Web site at all, one should do it right. We believe that factors such as “date last modified,” notations on Web pages, necessary regular maintenance and updating, FTC guidelines, and other Web site design and maintenance issues should be a part of legal and accounting curricula.

Our analysis of the 42 Web page sum- maries found no evidence suggesting that professional obligations were not fulfilled. In summary, the Web page summaries provided valuable informa- tion for the reader interested in FLPs as an estate planning tool. However, the Web pages were not perfect, and many defects were found. Though Web pages are a good starting point, the taxpayer must also take the important step of ver- ifying Web information from other

sources.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Limitations

Our study contained two major limi- tations. First, it was limited to attor- neys’ and accountants’ Web sites con- taining information related to FLP taxation. Therefore, it is impossible to extrapolate the results of the current study to other Web advertising. Sec- ond, because the population total is unknown, it was impossible to deter- mine the percentage of the population represented by the sample of 42 Web sites. This makes extrapolating the results to the general population of accountants and attorneys with Web sites questionable. Still, given the limi- tations of the research design, our study does provide useful information for practicing accountants and attor- neys as well as educators interested in researching Internet advertising.

Conclusion

We examined 42 Web sites contain- ing summaries on FLPs and belonging

to 34 attorneys,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

6 accountants, and 2

other sources. Less than 10% of the Web sites presented a balanced, objec- tive view of FLPs. and around 15%

31 6 Journal of Education for

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Business

contained one or more errors and/or

untimely information.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

NOTE

1. A few sites were deemed inappropriate for the purposes of our study because they contained very few words in outline form, very few short, incomplete sentences, and/or incomplete and unusable information because they were under construction.

REFERENCES

AICPA. (1990). AICPA

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Code of Professional

Condurt. [On-line]. Available: http://www.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

aicpa.org/about/code/etS02.htm

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2000, Septem-

ber). Advertising and marketing on the Internet:

Rules of the road. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubsbuspubs/

ruleroad.htm

Federal Trade Commission. (2001, February 9).

Dot com disclosures. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/

dotcom/index.html

Gruman, G. (1999, February 22). E-commerce blurs lines of integrity, but they still exist. Com-

puterworld, 33(8), 37.

IN RE: Amendment of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 7.1, 7.2, and

7.3. Information about legal services

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

-

S.W.2d -Supreme Court of Arkansas. [On- line]. Available: http://courts.state.ar.us/ opin-

ions/1999a/19990S06/profc71 .html Delivered

May

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

6, 1999.

1.R.C §92001(c), 2010(c). I.R.C. $2503(b).

Jones, G., J.D., LL.M. (2000). Family limited partnerships and transfer tax avoidance: Under- standing the IRS analytical process. Journal of

Taxation of Investments, Summer, 302-3 18.

Kautz, R. C., Esq. (1990). Taxlestate planning

family limited partnerships: Sharing the wealth

I.R.C. @2701-2704.

while retaining control. [On-line]. Available: http://www.newjerseylaw.com/publications/

FLP.htm

Peeler, C. L. (1995, February 23). Advertising and

the law in the electronic age: Remarks before the American Conference Institute. [On-line].

Available: http://advertising.utexas.edu/

researchflaw/ ElectAge.htm1

Rodgers, G. L. (1998, May). Tax alert: Business

and non-tax reasons for forming a family limit- ed partnership. Kennedy and Coe. [On-line].

Available: http://www.kcoe.com/famltd.htm

Stephanson, C. (1999, February 24). Family limir-

ed partnerships: How to establish a successful family limited partnership. Valuation Services,

Inc. [On-line]. Available: http://www.valuation

service.com/html/flp.html

Winker, M. A,, Flanagin, A., Chi-Lum, B., White, J., Andrews, K., Kennett, R. L., DeAngelis, C. D., & Musacchio, R. A. (2000, March 22/29). Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: Principles governing AMA

Web sites. JAMA. 283(12), 1600-1606.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

JOURNAL OF

EDUCATION

FOR

BUSINESS

..I .B. ..I

...

W . 1 ..H

... .

YES!

I would like to order a one-year subscription to the Journal of Education

.

.

.

.

.

ORDER FORM

.

for Business published bimonthly. I understand payment can be made to Heldref

a

$45.00 Individuals

ACCOUNT # EXPIRATION DATE

SIGNATURE

Publications or charged to my VISA/MasterCard (circle one).

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

0

$76.00 Institutions

NAME/INSTITUTION

.

.

ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZI P

.

COUNTRY

'

ADD $15.00 FOR POSTAGE OUTSIDE THE U.S. ALLOW 6 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY OF FIRST ISSUE.

SEN0 ORDER FORM AND PAYMENT TO:

.

.

.

.

HELDREF PUBLICATIONS, Journal of Education for Business

1319 EIGHTEENTH ST., NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20036-1802 PHONE (202) 296-6267 FAX (202) 293-6130

SUBSCRIPTION ORDERS 1(800)365-9753, www.heldref.org

The Journal of Education for Business readership

includes instructors, supervi- sors, and administrators at

the secondary, post- secondary, and collegiate levels. The Journal features basic and applied research- based articles in accounting, communications, economics, finance, information sys- tems, management, market- ing, and other business dis- ciplines. Articles report or

share successful innovations, propose theoretical formula- tions, or advocate positions on important controversial issues and are selected on a blind, peer-reviewed basis.

JulylAugust 2001 31 7

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA