Answer:
accrued basis income: 14,300
cash basis income: 9,500
Explanation:
accrued: we reocgnize base on the time of transfer of goods and the expense are mathced when the period they occur.
revenues 33,700
operating expense <u> (19,400) </u>
net income 14,300
cash basis: we recognize based on the cash collection or disbursement:
collected from customer 25,900
paid expenses (13,600)
insurance paid <u> (2,800) </u>
net income 9,500
Answer:
d. inventory is sold at a profit
Explanation:
Net working capital increases when <u>inventory is sold at a profit</u>
Net working capital = Current Assets - Current Liabilities
. Cash, Inventory and receivables are part of current assets
Hence, when inventory is sold at profit, cash received is more than decrease in inventory and hence, current asset increase and hence, working capital increases. When it is sold at cost, it remains the same. Purchase of inventory on credit will lead to same amount increase in current assets and current liabilities. Payment by customer will lead to increase in cash and decrease in accounts receivable, Hence, no impact
Answer:
Owners are not required to pay it to foreign workers.
Explanation:
Owners must pay it to any worker regardless of its nationality.
Answer:
Option B - There are significant diseconomies of scope is the correct answer.
Explanation:
Option A is, not a condition that could improve the probability that the justice department would approve the merger.
The Herfindahl-Hirschman index is based on a restricted definition of the product market or the impact of foreign competition, the merger might be allowed.
It might also be permitted if one of the firms is in financial trouble, or if significant economies of scale exist in the industry.
Significant diseconomies of scope would only serve to make the merger less likely to be accepted.
Therefore, option B is the correct answer.
Answer:
2) assumption not made
Explanation:
The original statement does not include any assumption about what the companies are doing about this issue, it just proposes an idea of fair compensation.
maybe whoever wrote this statement believes that very few companies or none at all actually compensate homeowners for a reduction in the market value of their properties, but it doesn't state it. It is also possible that the statement assumes that companies are paying some compensations or were paying some compensations but are not willing to continue to do it since no legislation forces them to do so. The author's position is vague and not clear with respect to what the companies are currently doing.
