The other day, someone asked me about the last time my ethics had been tested at work and how I reacted.
I wasn’t sure how to respond. It’s a good question, and I wanted to answer it. Still, I hesitated to reveal too much about some of the less-than-honest bosses I’ve reported to in the last two decades.
These are bosses who lied, gossiped about their staff to other staff, broke confidences, fudged numbers to governmental agencies, botched payroll tax withholdings and covered it up, and willfully and recklessly turned a blind eye to leadership abuse — for starters.
Answer:
<u>Journal 1</u>
Debit : Prepaid Expense $37,600
Credit : Cash $18,800
Credit : Insurance Expense $18,800
<u>Journal 2</u>
Debit : Dividends $18,000
Credit : Wages $18,000
Explanation:
Journal 1
The first error has to be corrected by debiting the Prepaid Expenses by twice the amount paid to cancel the effect of a credit entry made to that account. Cash is credited to show the correct credit entry that was supposed to be made. Insurance expense is credited to cancel the debit entry made to this account in error.
Journal 2
The error made is called error of principle. This is were the transaction is recorded in the wrong class of accounts. Simply, Debit the Dividends and credit the Wages Account to record and reverse the error out of the Wages Account into the Dividends Account.
Answer:
1. <em>If this law of contributory negligence applies to the state, then Ramona will receive no compensation for the damages she sustained. </em>
<em>
</em>2<em>. If this law of comparative negligence applies to this state, then Ramona will get 100% - 20% = 80% of the damages incurred in the accident, from John which will be $80,000</em>
<em />
Explanation:
In contributory negligence, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.
<em>If this law of contributory negligence applies to the state, then Ramona will receive no compensation for the damages she sustained. </em>
<em>
</em>
In comparative negligence, the plaintiff's damages is award by the percentage of fault that the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for his or her own injury i.e the plaintiff's damage compensation is reduced by percentage of his/her percentage of fault.
<em>If this law of comparative negligence applies to this state, then Ramona will get 100% - 20% = 80% of the damages incurred in the accident, from John</em>
this is 80% of $100,00 which is equal to <em>$80,000</em>
The total amount of taxes that the company will pay will be calculated as under -
Total taxes paid = (Taxes on income) + (Taxes on dividends)
Total taxes paid = ($ 9.50 X 39%) + ($ 4 X 10%)
Total taxes paid = $ 3.705 + $ 0.4 = $ 4.105 or $ 4.11
I think that the stament given above is true, as this principle <span>lets business survive or fail without much interaction from the government.</span>
