What would happen if B.E. wasn’t able to sell all of the 30,000,000 units? They would get stockpiled into ending inventory and allocated expense which would increase costs of goods sold and therefore net income. Since the presidents bonus is based off of net income and the amount he can
This would be important for accounts receivable - money that is owed by a customer for products/services. Representing a company in small claims court requires one to be familiar with the law and how it relates to accounting practices. In the Mack v. Edenwold Fertilizer Services Ltd. case, if Mack had a knowledgeable accountant that was familiar with the law, he may have been advised not to sue as the illegality of the situation would have resulted in a loss. In turn, this advise would have saved Mack both time and
Jones purchase the stock of Smithon outright leaving Smithon intact? The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock.
(1) One of the inherent risks is that Medlin would create a fictitious sale of fictitious inventory and would record a re-deposited check as payment received for the sale. Since payments for the fictitious sales were recorded simultaneously with creation of the account receivable, there will be no sales were realized or recorded in the actual Comptronix's account. Another inherent risk is Hebding instructed Medlin to shift the fictitious inventory into an equipment account, and Medlin and Shifflett prepared fake invoices from third-party vendors. They would manually draw a check to the vendor for payment for the equipment. They create the fictitious purchases of equipment which form a potential inherent risk for the company.
2.50 *Any (1) Rug Doctor ® OFF Machine Rental. Retailer: We will reimburse you the face value of this coupon plus 8¢ handling, provided it is redeemed by a consumer at the time of purchase on the brand specified. Coupons not properly redeemed will be void and held. Reproduction of this coupon is expressly prohibited. (Any other use constitutes fraud.)
Tesco Case Study Requirement 1 A) Refund Tesco earned for the 12-month period ending August 31, 2014: Tesco earns a refund percentage based off of total purchases within a twelve month period. When determining the refund percentage, anything above 3.7 billion in purchases qualifies for a 10 percent refund, and Tesco had total purchases of 3.75 billion at £2 per unit, which equals £7.5 billion in sales for the period ending August 31, 2014. 10 percent of £7.5 billion would give the company a refund of £750 million. However, the refund was settled with a cash amount of £800 million. i) Compliance with U.S. GAAP for CPC: CPC was incorrect in their treatment of the sales allowance.
When comparing the variables: RACE and XMARSEX, many conclusions arise. The contingency coefficient is: .070. This indicates a weak, positive relationship between the variables. This means that race has little impact on a person’s opinion about having sex with a person other than a spouse. The approximate sig is: .000.
We estimated how many customers we need to breakeven each year. Cash flow Projection for five years Cash Flow Analysis Year 1 Beginning Balance $0 Capital $10,000 Revenue (10 Clients) 59,700 $66,700 Disposables Purchases 49,700 Administrative $7,400 (Advertising 200, Other costs 200, Airlines 1,000, Office 6000) Wages $4,000 (2,000 each for Benny and Janet) $61,100 Ending Balance $5,600 Year 2 Beginning Balance $5,600 Revenue (15 Clients) $89,550 $93,150
Disadvantage: * Technical evaluation after price negotiation causes an unfair price competition during auction between high quality suppliers and low quality suppliers. Suppliers with low quality may have lower cost structure comparing to high quality suppliers. Without setting the quality standard before the auction, it is likely that the auction winner may not be able to meet Casturn’s technical evaluation. * The cross-function time at step 5 have veto power. Even though this practice reduces the chance of making a bad re-sourcing decision, it wastes lots of time and energy from CMC and engineer team, and may discourage nominated supplier.
www.economist.com www.oligopolywatch.com Monopoly A definition of Monopoly is 'it exists when there is only one supplier of a product or service.' (BPP Business Organisations, Competition and Environment Chapter 4 Page 106) Monopoly is a sole player and the Government defines a Monopoly as a business with at least 25% of the market share. A single Monopoly however is just one company which has 100% of the market share. A monopoly will produce less, at a higher price. It decides its price by calculating the quantity of output at which its marginal revenue would equal its marginal cost, and then sets whatever price would enable it to sell exactly that quantity.