Land improvements are capitalized separately from Land because land improvements have only a limited useful life.
Land is a special fixed asset which means that:
- It is purchased for long term use
- It is not depreciated because it lasts forever
Land improvements on the other hand, will not last forever. They will eventually wear out and need to be replaced. They are therefore capitalized separately from land so that they can be depreciated if need be.
In conclusion, land improvements are capitalized separately from land because they have a limited useful life.
<em>Find out more at brainly.com/question/14436052.</em>
Answer:
1. Going concern
2. Economic entity
3. Monetary unit
4. Periodicitys
Explanation:
1. Since Jumbo's Restaurant is planning to close, the assumption of continuity (going concern) is no more applicable. This should be disclosed. Instead asset was still recorded at historical price which is misleading.
2. Gorloks Tax Services is an economic entity, and the property and assets of owners are not considered to be for the business. In this case the boat Sam bought was wrongly reported as an asset of the company.
3. Claim Jumpers when reporting the 5 trucks purchased must include a monetary value for them. The assumption of monetary unit states that all items reported on the balance sheet must be expressed in monetary terms.
4. Cobbler's Etc violated the assumption of periodicity which states the financial position of the business must be declared in a particular accounting period. Accounting period can monthly, quarterly, biannually, and yearly. The business should choose and accounting period and ensure financial position is reported for each of them. In this case financial reporting is not consistent with reporting happening after 14 months and before that 18 months.
Answer:
what do u want from me monq I told you bye so bye mean bye
Answer:
shillings . 4,200
Explanation:
The hire purchase price Shs. 16,800
The deposit is 25% of 16,800
= 25/100 x 16,800
=0.25 x 16,800
=Shs. 4,200
Answer:
A. Injury
Explanation:
Given that for strict liability, the defendant is only liable to accidents he or she causes, that is to prove strict liability, the plaintiff must show
cause and damages. Whereas on negligence, it is required of a plaintiff to show duty, breach, cause, and injuries.
Hence, what must be shown to prove negligence that is not needed to prove strict is "Injury" as it covers a lot of factors including both cause and damages of strict liability.
