Answer:
c. May be able to avoid liability to the extent she had no reason to know of the deficiency (and did not have actual knowledge) when filing the return. The burden of proof will be on her.
Explanation:
The doctrine of <em>innocent spouse relief</em> might apply here. Mrs. Jones will have to prove that:
- the income that was omitted was earned by her husband, not her.
- she must prove that when she signed the tax filings, she was not aware of the omission.
- after examining all the facts surrounding the omission, the IRS must decide that blaming her would not be fair.
Answer:
B) $617,000
Explanation:
Issuance capital of 500,000 shall remain constant. Out of the current year net earnings 25000 we are paying 2000 as dividend so, that adds to the owners equity = 23000.
Total liabilities = total assets = 500000 + 23000 + 94000 = 617000
Answer:
B) A high interest rate.
Explanation:
A low credit score means a bad credit score. Meaning you are not that reliable in paying your credit back. If you were reliable, they would make it easy for you and give you a low interest rate. However, your credit score says otherwise so they will give you a high interest rate since you are a higher risk.
Answer:
35.92%
Explanation:
The computation of cost of not taking the cash discount is shown below:-
Discount percentage ÷ (100 - Discount percentage) × (360 ÷ (Full Allowed Payment Days - Discount Days))
= 3% ÷ 97% × 360 ÷ (50 - 19)
= 3% ÷ 97% × 360 ÷ 31
= 0.03093 × 11.61290
= 0.359187
= 35.92%
Therefore for computing Mr. Warner's cost of not taking the cash discount we applied the above formula.
Yes I would sacrifice potentially winning the state title. Using performance enhancing drugs is both morally wrong, and illegal. If my team was to win states I would want it to be because we deserved it, not because players were taking drugs. Not only that, but the players who took the drugs could be causing a lot of harm to their bodies, something that isn't worth a title.
