Metro by T-Mobile is a prepaid wireless carrier brand owned by T-Mobile US. It previously operated the fifth largest mobile telecommunications network in the United States using code division multiple access.
Answer:
The company's net income for the month was $27 comma 000
Explanation:
Net income = Total Sales - total expense
During the month of May,
Total Sales = credit sales + cash sales = $35,000 + $25,000 = $60,000
The company paid wages of $ 24 comma 000, the wages expense was $ 24 comma 000.
The company paid utilities of $ 9 comma 000, the utilities expense was $ 9 comma 000
Total expense = wages expense + utilities expense = $24,000 + $9,000 = $33,000
The payment that the company received from its customer was not the sales or expense. It made increase cash and reduce account receivable.
Net income = $60,000 - $33,000 = $27,000
3. Classical economics assumes people are rational and logical while behavioral economics adds psychology to the mix.
A major theory in classical economics is that human beings are rational and, given the necessary information they will make rational decisions and act rationally, however, Behavioral economics assumes that people are irrational players.
Answer:
a. Partnership XYZ's recognized gain (loss)
- recognized gain = fair market value - basis = $180,000 - $50,000 = $130,000
b. Bob's taxable gain (income)
- Bob's taxable income = $130,000 x 50% = $65,000
c. Bob's basis in the property
- Bob's new basis = $180,00 x 50% = $90,000
d. Bob's basis in the partnership
- Bob's basis in the partnership = $40,000 + $65,000 = $105,000
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
