Answer:
violates the matching principle
Explanation:
The direct write-off method is an accounting method for recognizing bad debts expense arising from credit sales when individual invoices has been identified as uncollectible.
In Accounting, one of the weaknesses of the direct write-off method is that it violates the matching principle.
The direct write-off method is a method of accounting for uncollectible receivables.
Answer:
D) all of the above
Explanation:
First find the present value for each alternative using PV of perpetual cashflow formula;
PV = CF / rate
CF = 50
If rate= 5%;
PV = 50/0.05 = $1,000
If rate = 2%;
PV = 50/0.02 = $2,500
With these two calculations, we see that;
-the bond price increased by $1,500
-you could sell this bond at a capital gain, meaning you can sell it a higher price that what you bought it for.
-at an interest rate of 2%, the speculative demand for money would increase
Hence , all these choices are correct!
<h2>
Clarify the assignment would be the first step john should take to increase Kerry's responsibilities.</h2>
Explanation:
Option A: If a new work is assigned or an additional work is assigned, it is necessary to first explain about the new responsibility and clarify about the assignment. This would ensure Kerry to continue the work smoothly.
Option B: Feedback is always welcome but this is not the first step to add responsibilities.
Option C: Notifying others is the responsibility of John and not Kerry. So this choice is invalid.
Option D: Accountability though it is mandatory comes only in the closure part.
Answer:
101.12 million
Explanation:
<em>The present value of a future cash flow is the amount that can be invested today at a particular rate for a certain number of years to have the future cash flow </em>
The present value of the liability
= FV × (1+r)^(-n)
= 800 × (1.09)^(-24)
= 101.12 million
The present value of this liability= 101.12 million
Answer:
Explanation:
Solution-
According to Senator Jones, the elasticity of taxable income is larger, which means that due to a certain percentage rise in taxes, the taxable income rises by a greater percentage. Also, according to Senator Smith, the elasticity of taxable income is small, which means that due to a certain percentage rise in taxes, the taxable income rises by a smaller percentage.
(I) Under Senator Jones assumptions, due to rise in taxes, the taxable income has risen considerably as compared to Senator Smith assumptions. Thus the estimates of additional revenue from the tax increase will be larger under Senator Jones assumptions, compared to Smith's assumptions.
(ii) Since under Senator Jones assumptions, elasticity of taxable income is large. So due to rise in taxes, there is a significant proportional rise in taxable income under Jone's assumptions compared to Senator Smith assumptions. Thus the costs of the tax increase is borne more under Senator Jones assumptions , compared to Smith's assumptions.
