Answer:
The answer is B
Explanation:
In Miller's decision-making process, he needs to recognize the costs and benefits that he will get from replacing the existing the current machinery with the new one and ignore all the cost that had happened (sunk cost) because has already incurred even if Miller chooses to replace or not to replace the current machine. In this case, it is the cost incurred to upgrade the current machine.
For option A, salvage value of the new machinery should be considered as it helps Miller estimates how much money he is going to recover after the machinery's useful life.
For C, salvage value of the current machinery should be considered as it helps Miller estimates how much he will get from selling this current machine as he disposes them to replace with the new one.
For D, Miller will need to know those the replacement result in any cost saving or cost increasing in the future which is part of the benefit or the cost of replacement.
Answer:
It is $30,000(C)
Explanation:
Depreciable cost = $90,000
Using straight-line method,
Annual depreciation = $90,000/3
= $30,000.
Hence, depreciation expense at the final year of service is $30,000
We cannot make use of entire cost of equipment of $120,000 because it seemed the company wanted to sell its scrap value for $30,000. Hence, this has been used to reduced it cost to $90,000 which is a depreciable cost .
Answer:
Please refer to the attached
Explanation:
Please refer to the attached.
Note that in trial balance Debit side must always be equal to debit side
Answer:
$ 75131
Explanation:
Given:
Amount inherited = $ 300000
Present amount of annuity = $ 300000
Interest rate, i = 8% = 0.08
number of years, n = 5
Now,
the formula for the present amount of annuity is given as:
Present amount of annuity =
where,
P is the periodic payment
n is the number of years
now, on substituting the values, we get
$ 300000 =
or
$ 300000 = P × 3.993
or
P = $ 75131.48 ≈ $ 75131
hence, the amount he can withdraw is $ 75131
Answer:
C) a positive result from regulatory and economic environmental forces.
Explanation:
In the short run the whole economy will benefit, more American jobs will be created, consumers will probably get good cars at even lower prices, but on the long run the scenario may not be that good for everyone. If Toyota builds the plant, it will be the result of economic and political pressures, and that is a game that two can play, just ask farmers about the trade deal with China.
On the other hand, this is a type of deja vu (or been there, done that), and it ended up with GM and Chrysler bankrupt and Ford barely surviving. This types of policies were enforced in the 1980s by president Reagan and the famous "Made in the USA" by Bruce Springsteen. Back then Honda had a small factory and Toyota was starting to consider building a plant in the US, Nissan hadn't showed up yet. Fast forward a few years and the only good American vehicles are pickups, the Japanese brands wiped out the rest. The country is full of Camrys, Accords, Civics, Corollas, CRVs and Rav4s. They are great cars, too great for the American car manufacturers to compete against. Who knows, with this type of policies maybe in 10 years the only American car manufacturer left will be Tesla.
This is like playing with fire on top of a fuel truck.