The AICPA term “spousal equivalent” seems to be unfastened to reading. Left to my ain senses. I found in an cyberspace hunt the Free Dictionary version of what a “spousal equivalent” is. Harmonizing to the definition. a bridal equivalent is “a individual ( non needfully a partner ) with whom you cohabit and portion a long-run sexual relationship”. This definition leaves a batch to be desired and can be interpreted and misled in many waies. Merely because one cohabitates with person else ( regardless of sexual penchant ). doesn’t needfully mean that they are holding sex.
As Dr. Higgs mentioned in this week’s talk. even married twosomes that live together don’t needfully have sex. In add-on. what is a long-run relationship? In my mid-twentiess. a long-run relationship could hold been six months. Now that I’m older. I think that the same term should be measured in old ages. It sounds to me that by utilizing this equivocal definition. the AICPA is covering all bases when it comes to protecting the ET Section 101 regulation of independency.
Spousal Equivalent
I doubt that there will of all time be a standard accepted definition and as noted by Matthew in his station the AICPA definition is pretty obscure. Dictionary. com besides has a similar definition to Free Dictionary saying bridal tantamount requires cohabitation and a long-run sexual relationship. If I were a member of PCAOB and I had to specify a bridal equivalent I would utilize similar key words including the cohabitation and relationship. but once more. as noted by Matthew there is a demand for set parametric quantities sing specific clip frames.
A particular defined length of clip would be required for persons to be considered bridal equivalents. Common jurisprudence matrimony came up during several hunts sing bridal tantamount and I would hold that it is likely the closest definition. It lays down specific regulations sing cohabitation and that the twosome involved would hold to be publically unfastened about their matrimony. sing bridal equivalency I believe that alternatively of being publically open about matrimony the twosome would hold to be unfastened about being in a monogamous relationship with each other.
I would hold that a general wide definition such as the one used by the AICPA creates a batch of confusion and obscureness. but as seen by the reading sing lewdness. definitions are left to the readings of the regulating parties of the clip. I am certainly the definition of spousal equivalent will germinate with each Court Justice who is involved in bridal tantamount instances. orienting the definition to suit each single instances.
