Answer:
Any adjustment section in the Accounts ought to be assessed and ought to be endorsed by the controller before posting it. The supporting clear archive to be delivered and held with the voucher for review reason.
Here, the case is money receipt is recorded twice, and requirements to book revising passage. Necessities to examine about the section, and need to cross check with money equalization and deals balance, Cash receipt number etc.to ensure this is a real case and ensure no fraud is occurring.
The answer to the question mentioned above is "the Euro".
Euro is the name of the currency that is used and by 19 members states and 330 million people, though some politicians and economist are calling for its retirement. This is the official currency of the Eurozone.
Answer:
direct material charge = $8500
Explanation:
given data
April 1 balance = $24000
April 30 Direct materials = 80000
April 30 Direct labor = 60000
April 30 Factory overhead = 54000
April 30 finished goods = 200000
so balance is = finished goods - ( balance + Direct materials + Direct labor + Factory overhead )
put here value
balance = 200000 - ( 24000 + 80000 + 60000 + 54000 )
balance = 18000
so here balance above $18000 is total manufacture cost of job no 100
so direct material charge for job no 100 is
direct material charge = manufacturing cost - applied cost - direct labour cost
direct material charge = 18000 - 4500 - 5000
direct material charge = $8500
Answer:
The correct answer is A) A market share of over 50% from the combined companies
Explanation:
The Clayton Act of 1914 regulates acquisitions and mergers in the United States. This is the legal source that the Justice Deparment would use to approve or disapprove the merger described in the question. It explicitly forbids mergers that result in over 50% of market share, because it consideres a higher percentage than that (a market share from 50% to 99%) to configurate a monopoly.
The merger in the question would result in a 70% market share, way higher than the legal limit, hence it would be denied by the DOJ.
Answer:
d. By not closely questioning Jason about his area of the business, Ellen and Frank will be seen to have ratified Jason's partnership operations.
Explanation:
Because Ellen and frank are partners with Jason, they would also both be liable for Franks conduct because the three of them are business partners and have shared profits equally in Jasons area of the business without paying attention to details about the source of the profit. This would make it seem like they were in agreement and accomplices with Jason.
