Paar corporation bought 100 percent of kimmel, inc., on january 1, 2015. on that date, paar’sequipment (10-year remaining life) has a book value of $420,000 but a fair value of $520,000.kimmel has equipment (10-year remaining life) with a book value of $272,000 but a fair value of$400,000. paar uses the equity method to record its investment in kimmel. on december 31, 2017,paar has equipment with a book value of $294,000 but a fair value of $445,200. kimmel has equipmentwith a book value of $190,400 but a fair value of $357,000. what is the consolidated balancefor the equipment account as of december 31, 2017? a. $574,000b. $802,200c. $612,600d. $484,400

Which of the following actions would be most likely to reduce potential conflicts of interest between stockholders and bondholders? a) compensating managers with stock options, b) financing risky projects with additional debt, c) the threat of hostile takeovers, d) the use of covenants in bond agreements that limit the firm's use of additional debt and constrain managers actions, e) abolishing the security and exchange commission

Fess receives wages totaling $74,500 and has net earnings from self-employment amounting to $71,300. in determining her taxable self-employment income for the oasdi tax, how much of her net self-employment earnings must fess count? a. $74,500 b. $71,300 c. $53,900 d. $127,200 e. none of the above.

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.