Answer:
$85,000
Explanation:
Given that,
Shares sold = 50,000 shares of $3 par common stock for $5
Buys back = 10% of its common shares outstanding for $7 per share
Total equity on December 31 = $300,000
Balance in stockholder's equity without retained earnings:
= Beginning balance in stockholder's equity + Increase in stockholder's equity - Decrease in stockholder's equity
= $0 + (50,000 × $5) - (50,000 × 10% × $7)
= $250,000 - $35,000
= $215,000
Retained earnings on December 31:
= Total equity at December 31 - Balance in stockholder's equity without retained earnings
= $300,000 - $215,000
= $85,000
Answer:
A. No gain or loss
B. Carryover; $2,338,000
Explanation:
A. Based on the information given the Corporation’s RECOGNIZED NO GAIN OR LOSS on the liquidation reason been that under SECTION 332 GOOSE'S BASIS IN THE SWIFT STOCK OF THE AMOUNT OF $3,340,000 IS REDUCED TO ZERO AMOUNT.
B. Based on the information given the Corporation’s BASIS IN THE ASSETS RECEIVED IN LIQUIDATION will be CARRYOVER BASIS of the amount of $2,338,000.
Answer:
A. Jennifer is correct. Her mom’s salary in today’s dollars would be $42256.
Explanation:
<u>purchase power relationship between 1975 and today:</u>
231/82 = 2.817073
<u>Purchase power of 15,000 dollars of 1975 today:</u>
15,000 x 2.817073 = 42,256.09756 = $42,256
As jenifers salary today is 50,000 She is corect, It is earning more than his mother at her first job
Answer:
Option E. Kate will win nothing.
Explanation:
The reason is that Arturo promise was to pay Kate for $9 an hour but Arturo didn't promised him for employment duration which means we even don't know what is healthy bonus and what is a good business postion because it varies from business to business and also depends upon the investment.
So the contract lacks information about what were the terms and condition of the employee contract so Kate will win nothing in the case.
Answer:
Attractive nuisance doctrine
Explanation:
Under attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner is held responsible for the injuries or death caused to children while playing on the land owned by him. The child or children could have got attracted to the land without knowing the danger or hazards present on the land.
This comes under intentional tort that imposes responsibility on the landowner for ensuring the safety of the trespassers.