For taxpayers with household income below 400% of the FPL there is a table of repayment limitation.
For at least 300% but not less than 400% ( for example: 350% ) it is $1,250.
Answer: $1,250.
Corporation is the form of business that responsible for QPD’s knowledge of the details of its competitor’s financial situation.
<h3>What is cooperate business?</h3>
A cooperate business is a business that is owned and manage by group of individuals.
The members also use the product as well as the service.
Coporation gives members access to information which can be divulged to competitors by members.
Therefore, Corporation is the form of business that responsible for QPD’s knowledge of the details of its competitor’s financial situation.
Learn more on coporation below,
brainly.com/question/13551671
#SPJ1
Answer:
The answer is $56.68
Explanation:
Solution
We recall that:
The firm paid a dividend of =$7.80
The projected growth of dividends is at a rate = 9.0%
The annual return = 24.0%
Now,
V = ($7.80 * (1.09)/(.24 - 0.9)
= (8.502)/(.24-0.9)
= (8.502) * (-0.66)
= $56.68
Therefore, this would be the most we would pay for the stock. If we paid less than that, our return would be above the 24%.
Answer:
The price of 3 months call option on stock is 8.03.
Explanation:
Acording to the details we have the following:
P = Price of 3-months put option is $6
So = Current price is $95
X = Exrecise price is $95
r = Risk free interest rate is 9%
T = Time is 3 months=1/4
C=Price of call option?
Hence, to calculate what must be the price of a 3-month call option on C.A.L.L. stock at an exercise price of $95 if it is at the money, we have to use the formula from put-call parity.
C=P+So-<u> X </u>
(1+r)∧T
C=$6+$95- ( <u>$95 )</u>
(1+0.09)∧1/4
C=$6+$95-$92.97
C=8.03
The price of 3 months call option on stock is 8.03
Answer:
it was a foreseen party
Explanation:
Key Largo bank would most likely sue Humphrey on the ground that it was a foreseen party. This is because Humphrey(CPA) being an auditor, knew that the audited financial statements are required for a filing with the regulatory body. Moreover, the auditing firm- Humphrey knew about the specific purpose of the audit report including the fact that his or her opinion(report) will will relied upon by other parties hence a foreseen third party for the auditor.
Based on the aforementioned, Key Largo Bank can sue Humphrey because he is aware of the intended purpose of the audit report.