On July 1 of the current year, Bertram acquired a 25 percent interest in Sycamore Company, a partnership, by contributing property with an adjusted basis of $7,000 and a fair market value of $12,000. The property was subject to a mortgage of $8,000, which was assumed by Sycamore Company. What is Bertram's basis in his partnership interest in Sycamore Company immediately after the partnership contribution

1. the political environment in india has proven to be critical to company performance for both pepsico and coca-cola india. what specific aspects of the political environment have played key roles? could these effects have been anticipated prior to market entry? if not, could developments in the political arena have been handled better by each company? 2. timing of entry into the indian market brought different results for pepsico and coca-cola india. what benefits or disadvantages accrued as a result of earlier or later market entry? 3. the indian market is enormous in terms of population and geography. how have the two companies responded to the sheer scale of operations in india in terms of product policies, promotional activities, pricing policies, and distribution arrangements? 4. “global localization” (glocalization) is a policy that both companies have implemented successfully. give examples for each company from the case.

10. which of the following is true regarding preretirement inflation? a. defined-benefit plans provide more inflation protection than defined-contribution plans. b. because of preretirement inflation, possible investment-related growth is increased for defined-contribution plans. c. all types of benefits are designed to cope with preretirement inflation. d. preretirement inflation is generally reflected in the increase in an employee's compensation level over a working career.

David paid $975,000 for two beachfront lots in coastal south carolina, with the intention of building residential homes on each. two years later, the south carolina legislature passed the beachfront management act, barring any further development of the coast, including david's lots. when david files a complaint to seek compensation for his property, south carolina refuses, pointing to a passage in david's own complaint that states "the beachfront management act [was] properly and validly designed to south carolina's " is south carolina required to compensate david under the takings clause?