Answer: $150,000
Explanation:
Seeing as the litigation expense will only be paid in 2018, it should be added back to income for 2015.
= 900,000 + 100,000
= $1,000,000
As the depreciation will reverse evenly over the next three years and with future income probable, it should be removed from income.;
= 1,000,000 - 300,000
= $700,000
Municipal Bonds have the advantage of being Tax-exempt so their interest income should be removed to calculate how much tax should be paid.
= 700,000 - 200,000
= $500,000
2015 Income Tax Payable = 500,000 * 30%
= $150,000
Answer:
here ya go this is the steps
Answer:
D. Replacement cost.
Explanation:
As we know that the inventory should be recorded at the cost or market value whichever is lower
Given that
Original cost is less than the net realizable value subtract the profit margin
So we assume the following figures
Original cost $10
Net realizable value 9
Replacement cost 8
NRV less normal profit margin 7
As if we compare the original cost and replacement cost so the lower value is of replacement cost
hence, the same is to be considered
Therefore the correct option is D.
Answer:
depends on the disability
Explanation:
depending on what kind of disability they have, people with disabilities cant do certain things
Answer:
Explanation:
Issue: Will the court rule in support of Daniel’s argument that Nintendo breached the warranty based on reasonable expectation on the performance of an expensive system and statements made while selling the gaming system?
Rule: There is a creation of express warranty when a seller makes a description of the statement quality, condition or performance of goods sold. This warranty is created by the statement of facts and if the seller uses words to designate the value of the supposed goods, it will only be considered as an opinion that does not create any express warranty.
The customer’s reasonable expectation of the existence of the gaming system based on the price leads to implied warranty. The goods sold should be logically fit for the general purpose for which it is sold. It should be of proper quality to satisfy the implied warranty of merchantability and the goods should fit the particular purpose for which the buyer will use the goods to satisfy the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Analysis: Here, the argument of Daniel that Nintendo’s description of the gaming system as “most reliable”, and “durable” asserted that the quality and performance of the gaming system will not stay because these words create general statements that are made as part of sale or seller’s opinion about the goods. These words would be considered as puffery and do not create any express warranty. The higher price of the gaming system would create an implied warranty about the performance of the system, but the switch failed only after the warranty period. When the seller has expressly stated the warranty period as one year, any defects that occur after the warranty period will not breach the implied warranty.
Moreover, the gaming system was reasonably fit for Daniel’s business purpose and worked well during the warranty period. Hence Daniel’s arguments will not stay in front of the court.
Conclusion: The court will not rule in favor of Daniel and Daniel will not be able to recover against Nintendo because no breach of warranty had occurred.
