The Goose Story

by Dr. Harry Clarke Noyes

ARCS NEWS, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1992

Next
fall, when
you see Geese
heading South for
the Winter, flying along
in V formation, you might
consider what science has dis-
covered as to why they fly that way:
as each bird flaps its wings, it creates an
uplift for the bird immediately following. By
flying in V formation the whole flock adds at least
71% greater flying range than if each bird flew on its own.

People who share a common direction and sense of community

can get where they are going more quickly and easily
because they are traveling on the thrust of one another.

When
a goose falls
out of formation,
it suddenly feels the drag
and resistance of trying to go it alone
and quickly gets back into formation to take
advantage of the lifting power of the bird in front.

If we have as much sense as a goose,

we will stay in formation
with those who are headed the same way we are.

When
the Head Goose
gets tired, it rotates back
in the wing and another goose flies point.

It is sensible to take turns doing demanding jobs

with people or with geese flying South.

Geese
honk from behind to
encourage those up front to keep up their speed.

What do we say when we honk from behind?

Finally,
and this is important,
when a goose gets sick, or is
wounded by gunshots and falls out
of formation, two other geese fall out with that
goose and follow it down to lend help and protection.
They stay with the fallen goose until it is able to fly, or until
it dies. Only then do they launch out on their own, or with another formation
to catch up with their group.

IF WE HAVE THE SENSE OF A GOOSE,

WE WILL STAND BY EACH OTHER
LIKE THAT.
When writing a case study analysis, you must first have a good understanding of the case study. Before
you begin the steps below, read the case carefully, taking notes all the while. It may be necessary to read
the case several times to fully grasp the issues facing the company or industry.

Once you are comfortable with the information, begin the step-by-step instructions offered below to write
a case study analysis.
Time Required: Varies

Here's How:

1. Investigate and Analyze the Company’s History and Growth. A company’s past can greatly
affect the present and future state of the organization. To begin your case study analysis,
investigate the company’s founding, critical incidents, structure, and growth.
2. Identify Strengths and Weaknesses Within the Company. Using the information you gathered
in step one, continue your case study analysis by examining and making a list of the value
creation functions of the company. For example, the company may be weak in product
development, but strong in marketing.
3. Gather Information on the External Environment. The third step in a case study analysis
involves identifying opportunities and threats within the company’s external environment.
Special items to note include competition within the industry, bargaining powers, and the threat
of substitute products.
4. Analyze Your Findings. Using the information in steps two and three, you will need to create an
evaluation for this portion of your case study analysis. Compare the strengths and weaknesses
within the company to the external threats and opportunities. Determine if the company is in a
strong competitive position and decide if it can continue at its current pace successfully.
5. Identify Corporate Level Strategy. To identify a company’s corporate level strategy for your
case study analysis, you will need to identify and evaluate the company’s mission, goals, and
corporate strategy. Analyze the company’s line of business and its subsidiaries and acquisitions.
You will also want to debate the pros and cons of the company strategy.
6. Identify Business Level Strategy. Thus far, your case study analysis has identified the
company’s corporate level strategy. To perform a complete analysis, you will need to identify the
company’s business level strategy. (Note: if it is a single business, the corporate strategy and the
business level strategy will be the same.) For this part of the case study analysis, you should
identify and analyze each company’s competitive strategy, marketing strategy, costs, and general
focus.
7. Analyze Implementations. This portion of the case study analysis requires that you identify and
analyze the structure and control systems that the company is using to implement its business
strategies. Evaluate organizational change, levels of hierarchy, employee rewards, conflicts, and
other issues that are important to the company you are analyzing.
8. Make Recommendations. The final part of your case study analysis should include your
recommendations for the company. Every recommendation you make should be based on and
supported by the context of your case study analysis.

Tips:

1. Know the case backwards and forwards before you begin your case study analysis.
2. Give yourself enough time to write the case study analysis. You don't want to rush through it.
3. Be honest in your evaluations. Don't let personal issues and opinions cloud your judgement.
4. Be analytical, not descriptive.
5. Proofread your work!
What You Need:

 A case study
 Instructions from your professor
 Writing tools
 Quiet time

CASE ANALYSIS EXAMPLE

FCT v. Dixon (1952) 86 CLR 540

The following analysis of the above case (Reading 1 in the Readings book) is intended as an
example of how you might go about the analysis of a case report using the framework
suggested in the Introduction to the Readings. This is a more complex case report in that it was
decided by a 3:2 majority of the High Court in four separate judgments. The two judgments
which comprise the majority – the joint judgment of Dixon CJ and Williams J and the judgment
of Fullagar J – will be considered in this example.

The facts
The facts in some detail may be found in the ‘Case Stated’ for the Full High Court at the
beginning of the report (at 540-3). The more material of these facts are also repeated in the
judgments themselves, and these will be the source of the facts in many other case reports. The
facts, with an eye to their materiality, may be summarised thus:

1. The taxpayer respondent was an employed person who enlisted in the armed forces,
thus ceasing his employment with his former employer. (Note that facts such as the
name of the employer and the nature of the taxpayer’s duties with that employer are
not material for the purposes of this analysis.)
2. The former employer had a policy of making up the difference in pay between their
former wages and those paid by the armed forces for those of its staff who enlisted.
 3. For the income year in question, the former employer paid the taxpayer a total of 104
pounds in accordance with its policy. (While it might be mentioned in your analysis,
the actual income year has no relevance in this case. The same might be said also for
the actual amount which should not have a bearing on the decision.)
4. At no time did the taxpayer give an undertaking to return to employment with the
former employer on completion of his war service; nor did the former employer give
an undertaking to re-employ him. (In other words, re-employment was not a condition
of the ‘make-up’ payment.)

The issue
The question of law to be decided by the Full High Court was whether the sum (of 104 pounds)
was assessable income of the taxpayer respondent for the year in question. (The relevant
assessing provisions argued before the Court were s. 25 and s. 26(e) of the Income Tax
Assessment Act 1936.)

The legal reasoning

Dixon CJ and Williams J

Their Honours found that s. 26(e) had no application in this case because they were ‘not
prepared to give [that provision] a construction which makes it unnecessary that the allowance
… shall in any sense be a recompense or consequence of the continued or contemporaneous
existence of the relation of employer and employee or a reward for services rendered given
either during the employment or at or in consequence of its termination’ (at 554). In other
words, for s. 26(e) to be applicable they considered that there needed to be a suitable
relationship between the payments and the employment of the recipient, even if that
relationship was not a direct employment relationship but simply a relationship that
contributed to causing the payments to be made. They found that such a relationship between
the taxpayer and the former employer did not exist.

However, they took a different view of s. 25, applicable to income under ordinary concepts, in
holding that it applied to the sum in question. On this question their Honours said (at 555-7):
 In the present case we think the total situation of the taxpayer must be looked at to see whether the receipts of
the taxpayer from [the former employer] are of an income character. … from his point of view, the
contributions made by [his former employer] meant that the periodical receipts upon which he depended for
the maintenance of himself and his dependants remained at the same level as his civilian employment would
have given. From his point of view therefore the word ‘income’ would be clearly applicable to the total
receipts from his military pay and allowances and from his civilian employers. It does not seem to matter
whether these employers are regarded as his former employers, as his future employers or as the other party
to a suspended employment. … it is clear that if payments are really incidental to an employment, it is
unimportant whether they come from the employer or from somebody else and are obtained as of right or
merely as a recognised incident of the employment or work. … (Emphasis added.)

In the present case the employment or service … is that of a soldier. … Because the [amount of 104 pounds]
was an expected periodical payment arising out of circumstances which attended the war service undertaken
by the taxpayer and because it formed part of the receipts upon which he depended for the regular
expenditure upon himself and his dependants and was paid to him for that purpose, it appears to us to have
the character of income, and therefore to form part of the gross income within the meaning of s. 25 … .

Thus their Honours decided that the amount was ordinary income because they found it to be
incidental to employment and in such circumstances it is irrelevant whether the person paying
is the employer or someone else. This is the key part of their ratio. They were also persuaded
by the fact that the receipts were regular and that they were used by the taxpayer to support
himself and his dependants. Regularity of receipt and the use to which the receipts are put are
not necessarily determinative of the question, but may be relevant in looking at ‘the total
situation of the taxpayer … to see whether the receipts of the taxpayer … are of an income
character’ (see above).

Fullagar J
His Honour also dismissed the application of s. 26(e) in holding that ‘the receipts in question are
not so related to any employment of the respondent as to fall … within the terms of s. 26(e) …
The payments were made irrespective of any services given by an employee as employee’ (at
563-4).

However, as with Dixon CJ and Williams J, Fullagar J held that the payments constituted
ordinary income assessable under s. 25, but by taking a different approach based on what
might be styled a ‘substitution’ argument. He said (at 567-8):

It seems to me that the … receipts … must be regarded as having the character of income. They
were regular periodical payments … . This consideration, while not unimportant, is not decisive.
What is, to my mind, decisive is that the expressed object and the actual effect of the payments
made was to make an addition to the earnings, the undoubted income, of the respondent. …
 What is paid is not salary or remuneration, and it is not paid in respect of or in relation to any
employment of the recipient. But it is intended to be, and is in fact, a substitute for … the salary or
wages which would have been earned and paid if the enlistment had not taken place. As such, it
must be income, even though paid voluntarily … . It acquires the character of that for which it is
substituted and that to which it is added. (Emphasis added.)

The decision
By majority, the Full High Court held that the payments received by the taxpayer constituted
ordinary income assessable under s. 25.