Entries for Bad Debt Expense Under the Direct Write-Off and Allowance Methods Seaforth International wrote off the following accounts receivable as uncollectible for the year ending December 31:
Customer Amount
Kim Abel $21,550
Lee Drake 33,925
Jenny Green 27,565
Mike Lamb 19,460
Total $102,500
The company prepared the following aging schedule for its accounts receivable on December 31:
Aging Class (Number
of Days Past Due) Receivables Balance
on December 31 Estimated Percent of
Uncollectible Accounts
0-30 days $715,000 1 %
31-60 days 310,000 2
61-90 days 102,000 15
91-120 days 76,000 30
More than 120 days 97,000 60
Total receivables $1,300,000
a. Journalize the write-offs for under the direct write-off method. If an amount box does not require an entry, leave it blank.
b. Journalize the write-offs and the year-end adjusting entry under the allowance method, assuming that the allowance account had a beginning credit balance of $95,000 on January 1 and the company uses the analysis of receivables method. For a compound transaction, if an amount box does not require an entry, leave it blank.
Write-off
Adjustment
c. How much higher (lower) would Seaforth International's net income have been under the allowance method than under the direct write-off method?
$

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.