Kan Hsin Lai
Case : Nathan Johnson’s Rental Car Reimbursement
Nathan interviewed with an accounting firm and the accounting firm agreed to reimburse him for the expense of a rental car that used to travel to the firm’s office.
Nathan called the rental agency and the agency agreed to credit his card to correct the $ 75 overbilling before sending the receipt for reimbursement.
Nathan has a chance to pocket ...view middle of the document...
ET Section 102, Integrity and Objectivity.
How Facts relate to standards
This case is a “little” ethical issue. Nathan faces the moral issue and affects his integrity when he makes a decision. If Nathan pockets the money, he violates the ET Section 102.
 It seems Nathan can rationalize to accept the extra money because Nathan spend his time to make several long-distance phone calls and considerable hassle with the rental agency. But the accounting firm do not know the process of negotiation, the firm may not think Nathan’s behavior is right even though the firm agreed to reimburse the extra expense. Thus, I think Nathan’s planned course of action is not ethical.
 There are three courses of action that Nathan could take.
Action 1. :Nathan received the extra money but do not notice the firm.
Action 2. :Nathan contacted the HR manager and let manager know he incurred some cost from the process of negotiation.
Action 3. :Nathan send and request the correct cost.
I think number 3 action is the best action for Nathan to take because number 1 action hides the fact and number 2 is a kind of request.