Answer: <u><em>C. Using predetermined totals to control posting routines.</em></u>
Explanation: A regulation total if developed for the agreement to be posted, then it should be set side by side with total of items posted to personal accounts. Therefore, The most adequate way to avert this kind of error is by applying predetermined totals to control stating the daily cycle.
<u><em>Therefore, the correct option in this case is (c)</em></u>
Cash receipts from customers = $136,000
cash payment for operating expenses = $102,000
tax paid = 1 / 3
Amount on which tax paid = $9,300
amount of tax paid = $9,300 / 3 = $3,100
net cash provides by operating activities = ?
Net cash = cash from customers - cash payment for operating expense - amount of tax paid
= $136,000 - $102,000 - $3,100
= $30,900
so the net cash provided by operating activities is $30,900
To complete the above question, please see below:
Sub-Prime Loan Company is thinking of opening a new office, and the key data are shown below. The company owns the building that would be used, and it could sell it for $100,000 after taxes if it decides not to open the new office. The equipment for the project would be depreciated by the straight-line method over the project's 3-year life, after which it would be worth nothing and thus it would have a zero salvage value. No change in net operating working capital would be required, and revenues and other operating costs would be constant over the project's 3-year life. What is the project's NPV? (Hint: Cash flows are constant in Years 1-3.)
<span>WACC 10.0% </span>
<span>Opportunity cost $100,000 </span>
<span>Net equipment cost (depreciable basis) $65,000 </span>
<span>Straight-line depreciation rate for equipment 33.333% </span>
<span>Annual sales revenues $123,000 </span>
<span>Annual operating costs (excl. depreciation) $25,000 </span>
<span>Tax rate 35%
</span>
The answer is <span>12,271</span>
Answer:
The Home owner commenced the action in a state A court ( C )
Explanation:
The Defendant ( the contractor) can decide to transfer the case from a state court to a federal court within the same state in which the case was filled by the The home owner if the federal court has the Jurisdiction to rule on the case
Since the contract was signed in state A under the laws of the state the case is definitely a state case and the Homeowner's move to remand the case to a state court with the argument that the Federal court lacks proper Jurisdiction is in order. The court decision on the matter will be based on the fact that the Homeowner commenced the action in a state A court where the contract was signed.