Answer:
![\left[\begin{array}{CCCccc}&accumulated&OASDI&HI&SUTA&FUTA\\KEN&6000&360&90&324&36\\ANN&146500&7020&1755&378&42\\LORI&119500&7020&1755&378&42\\TIM&60200&3612&903&378&42\\KATHLEEN&106900&6414&1603.5&378&42\\KITTY&36900&2214&553.5&378&42\\STEVE&89000&5340&1335&378&42\\MICHELLE&117000&7020&1755&378&42\\JHON&4000&240&60&216&24\\\end{array}\right]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cleft%5B%5Cbegin%7Barray%7D%7BCCCccc%7D%26accumulated%26OASDI%26HI%26SUTA%26FUTA%5C%5CKEN%266000%26360%2690%26324%2636%5C%5CANN%26146500%267020%261755%26378%2642%5C%5CLORI%26119500%267020%261755%26378%2642%5C%5CTIM%2660200%263612%26903%26378%2642%5C%5CKATHLEEN%26106900%266414%261603.5%26378%2642%5C%5CKITTY%2636900%262214%26553.5%26378%2642%5C%5CSTEVE%2689000%265340%261335%26378%2642%5C%5CMICHELLE%26117000%267020%261755%26378%2642%5C%5CJHON%264000%26240%2660%26216%2624%5C%5C%5Cend%7Barray%7D%5Cright%5D)
HI OASDI SUTA FUTA TOTAL
Employer 9810 39240 3186 354 52590
Employee 9810 39240 49050
TOTAL 19620 78480 3186 354 101640
Explanation:
We will compare the accumulated wages with the celling of each tax and apply the tax-rate oto the lower amount.
Then FUTA and SUTA will only be paid by the employeer.
Also, the employeer contributes the same amount for Hi and OASDI as the employees
Answer: Third
Explanation:
Diminishing returns to labor refers to the phenomenon where every additional worker leads to an increase in production at a decreasing rate.
Using the scenario described, when there was only one employee the company could mow 4 lawns a day. They added a 2nd worker and that figure went to 9 lawns a day which is an increase of FIVE.
When they added a 3rd worker, the figure again went up but only to 12 which is an increase of THREE only as opposed to the last increase of FIVE.
After the third worker therefore, there was an increase but at a smaller rate.
Answer and Explanation:
Given that this is a second price bid auction whereby the second highest bid is the price that the highest bidder pays for the item up for auction sale, so that b1>b2 then b1 gets item for the price of b2.
Truthfulness of true value is the dominant strategy here which means each player should aim to be truthful with their bid regarding their true value regardless of what other bidders are bidding. Therefore truthfulness of value is the optimal strategy with the best payoff for bidders
Answer:
$400,000
Explanation:
Since at December 31, Year 5, Tedd's tax advisor believed that an unfavorable outcome was <u>probable</u>. And a <u>reasonable estimate </u>of additional taxes was $400,000 but could be as much as $600,000.
Although after the Year 5 financial statements were issued, Tedd received and accepted an IRS settlement offer of $450,000.
Tedd should have included an amount of $400,000 as accrued liability in its December 31, Year 5 balance sheet
The reason is that according to the International Financial Reporting Standards, a PROVISION must be made as long as the conditions below were obtainable at year end.
- Existing Condition (which in this case is the tax dispute with the IRS)
- Probable Cash Outflow (which Tedd's Tax adviser confirmed)
- Reliable Estimate of Outflow ( which the scenario stated ''A reasonable estimate of additional taxes was $400,000'')
Hence, such 'reasonable estimate is the appropriate amount for inclusion in the financial statements.