On January 1, 2021, Tabitha Designs purchased a patent for $402,000 giving it exclusive rights to manufacture a new type of synthetic clothing. While the patent had a remaining legal life of 15 years at the time of purchase, Tabitha expects the useful life to be only eight more years. In addition, Tabitha purchased equipment related to production of the new clothing for $158,000. The equipment has a physical life of 10 years, but Tabitha plans to use the equipment only over the patent's service life and then sell it for an estimated $52,000. Tabitha uses straight-line for all long-term assets. The amount to expense in 2024 related to the patent and equipment should be: Multiple Choice $104,000. $98,800. $63,500. $40,050.

Stocks a, b, and c are similar in some respects: each has an expected return of 10% and a standard deviation of 25%. stocks a and b have returns that are independent of one another; i.e., their correlation coefficient, r, equals zero. stocks a and c have returns that are negatively correlated with one another; i.e., r is less than 0. portfolio ab is a portfolio with half of its money invested in stock a and half in stock b. portfolio ac is a portfolio with half of its money invested in stock a and half invested in stock c. which of the following statements is correct? a. portfolio ab has a standard deviation that is greater than 25%.b. portfolio ac has an expected return that is less than 10%.c. portfolio ac has a standard deviation that is less than 25%.d. portfolio ab has a standard deviation that is equal to 25%.e. portfolio ac has an expected return that is greater than 25%.

Singer and mcmann are partners in a business. singer’s original capital was $40,000 and mcmann’s was $60,000. they agree to salaries of $12,000 and $18,000 for singer and mcmann respectively and 10% interest on original capital. if they agree to share remaining profits and losses on a 3: 2 ratio, what will mcmann’s share of the income be if the income for the year was $15,000?

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?