A financial analyst discovers that Stark Industries has been inappropriately capitalising R&D costs in each year and amortizing them completely over a three-year period on a straight-line basis, beginning in the year after the cost was incurred. A total of $24m, $30m and $36m was inappropriately capitalised for fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. At the financial year end of 30 June 2019, it had total assets of $280m. Net income was $20m for fiscal 2019. Ignore tax effects for this question. Required:
a. Compute the amount of total asset and expense misstatement (over or understatement) in each period and provide your answer in the boxes provided below. Show all workings in the spaces provided.
b. Which other account(s), if any, will be mis-stated as a result of the above accounting treatment at the end of fiscal 2019?
c. Prepare the journal entries for correcting the misstatements that arise from the inappropriate capitalisation of R&D at the end of fiscal 2019. Note: Extra space for the journal entries has been provided below

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.