Answer:
(1) $322
Explanation:
(1) Pension Expense:
= Service Cost + Interest Cost - Expected rate of return + Amortization of prior service cost - Amortization of prior net gain
= $410 + (2800 × 7%) - (290 actual + 29 loss) + $45 - $10
= $410 + $196 - $319 + $45 - $10
= $322
(2) The journal entries are as follows:
(i) Pension expense A/c Dr. $322
Plan assets A/c Dr. $319
Amortization of net gain – OCI A/c Dr. $10
To Amortization of prior service-cost – OCI $45
To PBO $606
(To record pension expense)
(ii) Loss – OCI A/c Dr. $29
To plan assets $29
(To record loss on assets)
Working:
Loss on assets = {2900(11%-10%)}
= 2900 × 1%
= $29
(iii) Plan assets A/c Dr. $345
To cash $345
(To record funding)
(iv) PBO A/c Dr. $370
To plan assets $370
(To record Retiree benefits)
Answer:
B)
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that this scenario is best illustrated by the concept of Age-related changes. This term refers to changes that occur normally due to getting older. Some of these changes include decrease in vision acuity and decreased reaction time, both of which are problems that the older adult client is experiencing.
Answer: Yes they are
Explanation:
With a franchise, one is given permission to use another Company's name, brand or any other thing decided in the agreement with the franchisee agreeing to pay the franchisor for this permission / license.
Usually, as was the case here, the franchisor requires knowledge of a sale of a franchise because it carries their name.
Thomas Klutz knew of this agreement and yet neglected to tell William Thorbecke.
When Kahala found out about this they demanded understandably that Mr. Thorbecke stop using their intellectual property because they didn't give him permission.
This must have caused Mr. Thorbecke some sort of losses and so he decided to stop paying the note on the basis of fraud and breach of contract.
He would be right in both cases because there has been a breach of contract as he can no longer engage in Business properly. A business he bought and paid for in good will. Also he was sold the restaurant without being told that it was a franchise so he thought he had bought an original and this constitutes fraud due to misrepresentation.
