Answer:
-2
Explanation:
because if the bigger number is in the back and smaller number in the front then we shouldinus the back number to the front by using the minus or subtraction sign.so, the answer is -20
Answer:
No, the tax treatment will not be same.
All the amounts received by Billy, are during the course of business, and are related to the damages caused to business, and to him personally, and under tax these all amounts are tax free:
Amount received for personal injury of $100,000 is tax free as is related to expense of his personal recovery.
The amount of $50,000 and $15,000 though received from different sources but is for the same purpose of loss of income and destruction caused to business.
Whereas, amber is an employee, she is not the owner and therefore, all of the benefits received from her workplace are taxable.
As the policy was purchased by the employer and therefore, any amount received from such policy by amber will be taxable as a perquisite received from employer.
Answer:
-$380,789
Explanation:
Dear Portfolio = [(1,50,000)2 + (2,50,000)2 + 2(0.8)(1,50,000) ( 2,50,000)]0.5
= [$22500000000 + $62500000000 + $60000000000]0.5
= ($145000000000)0.5
= $380,789
The company that purchased the mine better approach the situation by developing a strategy that include all stakeholders.
In the year 2006, giant of the mining industry Xstrata purchased the Tintaya copper mine in Espinar, Peru. There has been a dispute between the community and the mine over issues including land rights, pollution, and social responsibility of the mining company. The previous mine owner had established a good dialogue table with the local community. According to many people , when Xstrata took over, the company did not abide by those arrangements which were made by the previous owner.
That is why if Xstrata wants to make better then it should consider the interest of every stakeholder over there.
To know more about Tintaya copper mine here:
brainly.com/question/11045973
#SPJ4
Answer:
Option C.The payment made by Cordelia but not the payment made by Rupert.
Explanation:
Based on the information given we were told that Rupert did the right thing and as well follow the due process and custom of the country because he fills out the license paperwork and as well takes the license paperwork to the correct office in which he pays the front desk person the amount of $100 to process the paperwork while Cordelia on the other hand violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act reason been that due to the connections she had in that country she went ahead to schedules an appointment with the minister in charge of commerce because the minister has the authority to determine the foreign companies that can get licenses and she as well pays the minister the amount of $200 to approve their license.
Therefore based on the scenario we can vividly say that the payment made by Cordelia but not the payment made by Rupert violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.