IRC 263 provides the general rule that no deduction shall be allowed for items that are capital in nature. The statute, too, is silent regarding the case specifics. This section does make specific mention of acquiring an asset for capitalization. MegaCorp, Inc. did not acquire an asset in this case to be capitalized, but instead paid a liability as part of their acquisition of the assets of Little, Inc. Analysis The case law is not silent on the matter.
Question 2: What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts in favor: There are several facts that are in favor of Chou for intent to contract. The first is that an oral distribution agreement as met, and that an email was sent by BTT with the agreement terms that included price, time frames, and the obligations of both parties. Also after the draft was again requested via fax by BTT it was immediately sent with no timely rejection. Facts against: In the original negotiation agreement it was stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
The first category of advertisements is not considered offers, while the latter is not. Because the Vehicle Code forces dealers to sell at advertised prices if the vehicle remains unsold and before the advertisement expires, the plaintiff is reasonable to take the ad as an offer. The court next considered if the mistake was genuine. The court finds that the defendant satisfied the requirements for a rescission of the contract. The significant error in price is a mistake regarding a basic assumption.
E&Y reasoned this as it creates an exception to the general rule of reserving for expected future product returns at the gross sales price and deferring the recognition of an equal amount of revenue. This justification is invalid. The company’s customers are not “ultimate customers,” but are wholesalers that sold their product to retailers. In addition, Medicis’s returns were not returns of products in exchange for products of “the same kind, quality, and price,” but of unsalable product for
2 An adver- tisement is generally not an offer. An advertisement is merely a request for offers. The con- sumer makes the offer, whether by mail, as above, or by arriving at a merchant's store ready to buy. The seller is free to reject the offer. | Application of Black Letter Law to Facts: | In the most simple basic form, a contract is formed through offer and acceptance - Since the Raisin Board’s advertisement did not count as an offer being made on their part, Milton’s sending in the $700,000 dollars to buy the points for the jet is not considered an acceptance of an offer.
So, then this means that Dyer needs to be alert of the sales tax. The argument of Dyer definitely is not good enough for the discussions about the purchase of the sales person in regards to the disputed sales tax (Mallor, et al.,2007). This arrangement furthermore reveals no other agreements verbally or any whatsoever that is not acceptable other than the current paper contract that was endorsed by Dyer (Mallor,
A payee whose name is misspelled on an instrument cannot indorse the instrument. (404) _F_ 17. An instrument payable to two persons jointly requires the endorsement of both of the payees for negotiation. (404) _F_ 18. A person who receives an instrument as a gift does not possess the rights
Week 7 – CheckPoint - Nortel Networks Case Nortel enters into guarantees that are defined and meets guidelines as laid out in FIN 45. Nortel usually guarantees the purchaser of business that is conducted by Nortel in the event that a third party asserts a claim against the purchaser, which would become a liability that is retained by Nortel as defined in their agreement. Nortel is has been unable to estimate the potential for maximum liability, since these type of indemnifications of guarantees do not have a maximum amount and the amounts are dependent upon the future contingent events. As mentioned in Nortel’s notes they have not historically made any significant indemnifications payments under any of the agreements that have been accrued in their financial statements. Intellectual property indemnifications obligations have a maximum amount that may be paid under these agreements of $48 million as of December 31, 2004.
No clause in the statue argue that the treaty should be applied retroactively, and it is not explicitly stated in the treaty during the initial signing of it. Additionally, it was neither Eurasian municipal law or customary at the time. Eurasia can state it was part of the 25% who never engaged in this practice before the treaty. According to the Lotus Case, if the states are divided on whether an action is obligatory you do not have customary international law. Lastly, Eurasia does not agree to the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over this case, so it has no right to sue the country.
A primary argument against revaluation is the lack of objectivity in arriving at current cost estimates, particularly for old assets that either will or cannot be replaced with similar assets or for which no comparable or similar assets are currently available for purchase. Discuss the qualitative concept of comparability. In your opinion, would the financial statements of companies operating in one of the foreign countries listed above be comparable to a U.S. company's financial statements? Explain. Countries including Australia, Brazil, England, Mexico, and Singapore, permit the revaluation of property, plant, and equipment to their current cost as of the balance sheet date, so does this affect the qualitative concept of comparability to U.S. companies’ financial statements?