Answer:
c. Christopher will have a dual basis for income tax purposes.
Explanation:
Due to the fact that the basis of Jane in the specific property was higher than the FMV of the property on the specific date that she gave out the property, therefore, the double basis principle will apply to Christopher. In addition, Christoper will not collect any additional basis for the tax paid on the gift. The correct answer is option c.
It would be 764 have a good day bye
Answer:
B. The total interest = $4.35
Explanation:
The first question to answer, is what is the present value of the annuity of the loan and then based on that the total interest can be calculated.
<h2>Present value of annuity= A x [(1-(1+r)-n)/r]*(1+r) </h2>
Where the A represents Annuity = or $20
The r represents the rate or 1.5%
and the n represents the number of periods which is 6 months
Calculating the value =
= 20 x [(1-1.015^-6)/0.015]*1.015
= 20 x [(1-0.91454219251)/0.015]*1.015
= 20*5.782644973
=$115.65
Now that the loan amount is known, the Total Interest can be calculated as follows
Total Interest= number of payments x monthly payments) - the loan amount (calculated above)
= 20 x 6 -115.65
= 120-115.65
The total interest = $4.35
Answer:
The correct answer is inject cash into it.
Explanation:
Every day, central banks lend money to private banks through auctions. The extraordinary thing about these new liquidity injections starring the European Central Bank or the US Federal Reserve is not so much the operation itself, as the situation in which they occur.
In this case, problems arise when, due to distrust, banks do not lend money to each other, operations that are common when the system is working properly.
With extraordinary placements, the central entities replace that lack of funds that private banks have not been able to obtain from their partners and, at the same time, at a cheaper price - at a lower interest rate.
Answer:
Option D. The accountant was a member of a professional organization.
Explanation:
The reason is that for a successful claim under the negligence act, the claimant have to prove following three things:
- Duty of care existed between the relation
- She has suffered economic harm &
- The harm was proximately caused by the accountant's breach of the duty of care.
So the accountant's membership is not a valid requirement under the negligence act for a successful claim.
