Answer: Barry must include $6,000 in gross income from discharge of indebtedness
Explanation:
Feom the question above, we are told that Barry embezzled $6,000 from his employer and that even though his employer discovered the theft, the employ did not fire him and told him that he did not have to repay the $6,000 if he attend Alcoholics Anonymous. Barry met the conditions and the employer canceled the debt.
In this case, Barry will have to include the $6,000 he stole in gross income from discharge of indebtedness. The gross income has to do with the sum of the wages, profits, salaries, rents, interest payments, and every other earnings, before the deductions of taxes or other deductions. Since Barry stole the money and.he.has been forgiven, the $6,000 has to be included in the gross income from discharge of indebtedness.
Answer:
3. Correctly ignored a sunk cost
Explanation:
Sunk costs refer to those costs which have been incurred in the past and which can no longer be recovered. For example, past expenditure on research and development with no current or future benefits represent sunk costs which can no longer be recovered.
Sunk costs are irrelevant for decision making process as they do not relate to current projects and yield no economic benefit.
In the given case, Manuel had already purchased a $10 movie ticket, which can neither be transferred nor eligible for a refund. Later when he does not exercise the option of going for the movie and opts for a concert instead, the amount of 10$ spent on the movie represents a sunk cost which is non recoverable.
Answer:
By Focusing on Key Performing Indicators (KPIs)
Explanation:
Having large amounts of data has its <em>advantages</em> with give entities competitive advantages over rivals. These include the ability to satisfy a market need and establish changing trends in demand.
However, some firms <em>get lost in large data</em> and this is because of overwhelming amount of information and failure to focus on their industry`s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.
In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.
"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".
The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.
For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.
