Answer:
Correct option is B
$160,000
Explanation:
From the question above, Cost of goods sold of $160,000 is treated as a negative item in calculating gross income rather than as a deduction.
For a drug dealer like Tom, all deductions
listed above are disallowed.
Answer:
b. Develop and present financial planning recommendations.
Explanation:
Since in the question it is mentioned that there is a recommendation for buying a personal liability with respect to the umbrella policy so in the steps of the financial planning process, the step that should be considered is to develop & present the recommendation with regard to the financial planning as the financial planning is important than can save your future
hence, the correct option is B.
Answer:
The amount of dividend received by common stockholders in 2017 = $7500
Explanation:
The preference shares are cumulative which means the 2015 dividend on cumulative preference shares will be paid in the next year when dividend is declatred.
The total dividend on preference shjares is = 2500 * 100 * 0.05 = $12500
In 2016 dividend of 22500 is declared and paid.
Out of this 22500, 12500 relates to prefernece dividend for 2015.
The remaining 10000 relates to 2016 preference dividend. Thus, 2500 of 2016 preference dividned is outstanding and will be paid in 2017.
In 2017 out of 22500, 15000 (12500 + 2500) dividendd is paid to preference share holders.
The amount of dividend received by common stockholders in 2017 = 22500 - 15000 = $7500
Answer:
Explanation:
Solution-
According to Senator Jones, the elasticity of taxable income is larger, which means that due to a certain percentage rise in taxes, the taxable income rises by a greater percentage. Also, according to Senator Smith, the elasticity of taxable income is small, which means that due to a certain percentage rise in taxes, the taxable income rises by a smaller percentage.
(I) Under Senator Jones assumptions, due to rise in taxes, the taxable income has risen considerably as compared to Senator Smith assumptions. Thus the estimates of additional revenue from the tax increase will be larger under Senator Jones assumptions, compared to Smith's assumptions.
(ii) Since under Senator Jones assumptions, elasticity of taxable income is large. So due to rise in taxes, there is a significant proportional rise in taxable income under Jone's assumptions compared to Senator Smith assumptions. Thus the costs of the tax increase is borne more under Senator Jones assumptions , compared to Smith's assumptions.
