Jak zarobic szybko pieniondze w wieku 11lat siedzonc w domu? plispomuszcie potrzebne bardzo daje najj

On july 1, 2016, killearn company acquired 103,000 of the outstanding shares of shaun company for $21 per share. this acquisition gave killearn a 40 percent ownership of shaun and allowed killearn to significantly influence the investee's decisions. as of july 1, 2016, the investee had assets with a book value of $6 million and liabilities of $1,468,500. at the time, shaun held equipment appraised at $140,000 above book value; it was considered to have a seven-year remaining life with no salvage value. shaun also held a copyright with a five-year remaining life on its books that was undervalued by $562,500. any remaining excess cost was attributable to goodwill. depreciation and amortization are computed using the straight-line method. killearn applies the equity method for its investment in shaun. shaun's policy is to declare and pay a $1 per share cash dividend every april 1 and october 1. shaun's income, earned evenly throughout each year, was $580,000 in 2016, $606,600 in 2017, and $649,200 in 2018. in addition, killearn sold inventory costing $93,000 to shaun for $155,000 during 2017. shaun resold $97,500 of this inventory during 2017 and the remaining $57,500 during 2018.a. determine the equity income to be recognized by killearn during each of these years. 2016 2017 2018b. compute killearn’s investment in shaun company’s balance as of december 31, 2018.

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?

The solution set for -18 < 5x-3 iso-3х3< xо-3хo3 > x