On december 31, year 1, a publicly traded entity identified a tax position that will result in a $100,000 tax benefit that qualifies for measurement and should be recognized. the entity has considered the amounts and possible outcomes of the position being sustained upon examination as follows: possible individual cumulative estimated probability of probability of outcome occurring occurring
$100,000 20% 20%
$30,000 35% 55%
$10,000 45% 100% 100%

what amount should be recognized as the tax benefit as of december 31, year 1?

a.$0
b.$10,000
c.$30,000
d.$100,000

Kimberly has been jonah in preparing his personal income tax forms for a couple of years. jonah's boss recommended kimberly because she had done a good job setting up the company's new accounting system. jonah is very satisfied with kimberly's work and feels that the fees she charges are quite reasonable. kimberly would be classified as a(n) (a) independent auditor (b) private accountant (c) public accountant (d) accounting broker

Performance bicycle company makes steel and titanium handle bars for bicycles. it requires approximately 1 hour of labor to make one handle bar of either type. during the most recent accounting period, barr company made 7,700 steel bars and 2,300 titanium bars. setup costs amounted to $35,000. one batch of each type of bar was run each month. if a single company-wide overhead rate based on direct labor hours is used to allocate overhead costs to the two products, the amount of setup cost assigned to the steel bars will be:

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.