He was supposed to keep 10%.
The 10% share was one of the columbus demand' when both columbus and the crown agreed to the terms for his voyage fundinsg.
But, since <span>he had been relieved of his duties as governor, the Crown no longer feel obligated to honour the term of the contract.</span>
Answer:
$9,840
Explanation:
In this question, we have to take the difference between the payment for S corporation and the C corporation
If Military Gear Inc is a C corporation, then the payment would be
= Ordinary income × marginal tax rate
= $84,000 × 24%
= $20,160
And, if Military Gear Inc is a S corporation, then the payment would be
= (Ordinary income - net effect) × marginal tax rate
= ($84,000 - $41,000) × 24%
= $43,000 × 24%
= $10,320
The net effect would be
= $159,000 - $118,000
= $41,000
The net payment would be
= $20,160 - $10,320
= $9,840
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Outsourcing is when a company gives some of its internal activities to an external party that takes the responsibility to get things done and one of the reasons for a company to do this is to get rid of activities that have to get done but that are not part of their core operations to be able to concentrate on their main activity and get those things done by experts which can help increase productivity. According to that, the answer is that the statement is true.
Answer:
$18,500
Explanation:
The computation of the balance of Service Revenue shown on the adjusted trial balance is shown below:
= Service revenue ending balance + accrued value
where,
Accrued value = $1,500 ÷ 3 = $500
And, the service revenue ending balance is $18,000
So, the Service revenue balance equal to
= $18,000 + $500
= $18,500
This is the answer but the same is not given in the options mentioned in the question.
Answer:
The basic difference between both are explained below.
Explanation:
Explicit collusion is where firms meet and agree to charge the same price, and an example of implicit collusion is price leadership. Unlike explicit collusion, implicit collusion unlike explicit collusion, implicit collusion is where firms signal to each other without actually meeting and agreeing to charge the same price.
Unlike explicit collusion, wherever the occurrence of an accommodation that would lend ammunition for an antitrust court case might be unscrewed, implied collusion is challenging to document as well as to verify. Implicit collusion frequently seems to be nothing more than all firms individually responding to shifting market circumstances.