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.
Answer:
General; limited; limited.
Explanation:
Limited partnerships have two classes of partners. These two (2) classes are;
1. General partner: it is a type of partnership in which two or more people come together and have an agreement to do business by sharing profits, assets, debts or financial and legal liabilities.
2. Limited partner: it is a type of partnership in which people come together and have an agreement to do business but the involved partners only contribute financially and solely responsible to the amount of money they invested.
Hence, the general partner actually runs the business and faces unlimited liability for the firm's debt, while the limited partner is only liable up to the amount the limited partner invested.
Answer:
INCREASE the consumption of Pepsi and REDUCE the consumption of Hamburger
Explanation:
Based on the information given we were told that Bill uses his whole budget to purchase the following :
5 cans of Pepsi
3 Hamburgers per week
And the following were the price:
Pepsi costs $1 per can
Hamburger cost $2
Bill marginal utility:
Pepsi 4
Hamburgers 6
Based on the above details this means that Bill could increase his utility by INCREASING Pepsi consumption and REDUCING hamburger consumption reason been that 5 cans of Pepsi costs $1 per can which will gives us income of $5 ($5×1) while 3 Hamburgers per week cost $2 which will give us income of $6 ($3×2) which typically means that the Hamburgers has more income that Pepsi.
Secondly since the marginal utility for Pepsi is 4 while that of Hamburgers is 6 which means that Hamburgers has higher MARGINAL UTILITY than that of Pepsi because the consumption of Hamburgers is higher than the consumption of Pepsi.
Therefore the best thing that Bill could do in order to increase his Pepsi utility is for Bill to increase Pepsi consumption and reduce hamburger consumption.
Basically I don’t know the answer but it wants me to put something
Ans: These barriers include: economies of scale that lead to natural monopoly; control of a physical resource; legal restrictions on competition; patent, trademark and copyright protection; and practices to intimidate the competition like predatory pricing.
