In 2018, the marion company purchased land containing a mineral mine for $1,650,000. additional costs of $633,000 were incurred to develop the mine. geologists estimated that 410,000 tons of ore would be extracted. after the ore is removed, the land will have a resale value of $110,000. to aid in the extraction, marion built various structures and small storage buildings on the site at a cost of $155,800. these structures have a useful life of 10 years. the structures cannot be moved after the ore has been removed and will be left at the site. in addition, new equipment costing $87,000 was purchased and installed at the site. marion does not plan to move the equipment to another site, but estimates that it can be sold at auction for $5,000 after the mining project is completed. in 2018, 51,000 tons of ore were extracted and sold. in 2019, the estimate of total tons of ore in the mine was revised from 410,000 to 497,500. during 2019, 81,000 tons were extracted, of which 61,000 tons were sold. required: 1. compute depletion and depreciation of the mine and the mining facilities and equipment for 2018 and 2019. marion uses the units-of-production method to determine depreciation on mining facilities and equipment. 2. compute the book value of the mineral mine, structures, and equipment as of december 31, 2019.

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.