Answer:
The correct answer is A
Explanation:
A substantial understatement may occur when tax return is understated by an amount greater than 10% of the tax required to be shown on the tax return.
Example: If a tax payer that is suppose to report a $6000 tax due and choose to report a $2000 instead, to know if a penalty will be charged or not it has to be greater than 10% of the amount which is suppose to be reported (i.e $6000 x 10% = 600) . therefore in the case shown above the penalty will be applied
NO. The company should not <span>alter its marketing campaigns to reflect biases that might be prevalent in various countries in which the company does business. Especially if the alteration made is against company polity and ethics.
The marketing campaigns must represent the authentic stance of the company. It should be presented in such a way that it gives out positive responses from clients and potential clients regardless of market sector.
</span>
Answer:
$1,667
Explanation:
Given that,
Savings account at the beginning of the year = $2,000
Price level at the beginning of the year = 100
Price level at the end of the year = 120
Price level increases from 100 to 120
Therefore, what was worth $120 earlier, is not worth only $100.
Hence, $120 at the beginning of the year is worth = $100 at the end of the year
$1 at the beginning of the year is worth = ($100 ÷ $120) at the end of the year
Savings of $2,000 at the beginning of the year is worth:
= ($100 ÷ $120) × $2,000
= 0.833 × $2,000
= $1,667
Therefore, the real value of the savings is $1,667.
Answer:
d.) Jones is an incidental beneficiary and has no right to sue for Ace Construction's breach of the contract.
Explanation:
Jones was not a direct party to the contract, in fact, any profit which he was supposed to receive was incidental in nature and thus he cannot sue Ace Construction's breach of the contract.
Answer:
First we need to first find the equilibrium quantity and price during normal times.
The equilibrium price in normal times is P=$3 and the equilibrium quantity is 55 bottles.
During the hurricane, the government will set a price ceiling of $3. We can infer from the table that the quantity supplied at P=$3 is 55 bottles while the quantity demanded during hurricane at the price of $3 per bottle is 105 bottles. Hence,
105-55= 50
During a hurricane, there would be a shortage of 50 bottles of water.
If there were no price ceiling, then the equilibrium price would be such that the quantity demanded during hurricane equals the quantity supplied. From the table we can see that the equilibrium price would in that case be P=$5 per bottle where the equilibrium quantity is 85 bottles. With the price ceiling only 55 bottles are available for trading. Now without the price ceiling 85 bottles are available.
Hence consumers would have to pay an additional $2 (=5-3) but they can now buy an additional 30 bottles [=85-55].
Without the antiprice gouging law, consumers would have to pay $2 more than the ceiling price, but they would bv able to buy 30 more bottles of water.
