1. In 2017, GREEN CORPORATION acquired a silver mine in Benguet. Because the mine is located deep in the Benguet mountains, Green was able to acquire the mine for the low price of P50,000.

In 2018, Green constructed a road to the silver mine costing P5,000,000. Improvements to the mine made in 2018 cost P750,000. Because of the improvements to the mine and the surrounding land, it is estimated that the mine can be sold for P600,000 when the mining activities are complete.

During 2019, five buildings were constructed near the mine site to house the mine workers and their families. The total cost of the five buildings was P1,500,000. Estimated residual value is P250,000. In 2017, geologists estimated 4 million tons of silver ore could be removed from the mine for refining.

During 2020, the first year of operations, only 5,000 tons of silver ore were removed from the mine. However, in 2021, workers mined 1 million tons of silver. During that same year, geologists discovered that the mine contained 3 million tons of silver ore in addition to the original 4 million tons. Improvements of P275,000 were made to the mine early in 2021 to facilitate the removal of the additional silver.

Early in 2022, an additional building was constructed at a cost of P225,000 to house the additional workers needed to excavate the added silver. This building is not expected to have any residual value.

In 2022, 2.5 million tons of silver were mined and costs of P1,100,000 were incurred at the beginning of the year for improvements to the mine.

Requirements:

1. Depletion from 2020 to 2022.
2. Depreciation from 2020 to 2022.

Equity in Net Income and Noncontrolling Interest in Net Income

Palm Resorts acquired its 70 percent interest in Sun City on January 1, 2017, for $41,750,000. The fair value of the 30 percent noncontrolling interest at the date of acquisition was $14,750,000. Sun City’s date-of-acquisition reported net assets of $5,000,000 were carried at amounts approximating fair value, but it had unrecorded identifiable intangibles, capitalizable per ASC Topic 805, valued at $7,500,000. These intangibles are determined to have limited lives, amortized on a straight-line basis over five years. It is now December 31, 2020, and Sun City reports net income of $10,000,000.

Required

a. Calculate the amount of goodwill originally reported for this acquisition, and its allocation to the controlling and noncontrolling interests.

Enter answers in thousands (example, $41,750,000 equals $41,750 in thousands).

b. Calculate equity in net income and the noncontrolling interest in net income for 2020, assuming goodwill from this acquisition is impaired by $2,000,000 in 2020.

Enter answers in thousands (example, $3,000,000 equals $3,000 in thousands).

Use negative signs with answers that reduce net income amounts.

Problem 11-9 (Algo) Straight-line depreciation; disposal; partial period; change in estimate [LO11-2, 11-5] The property, plant, and equipment section of the Jasper Company’s December 31, 2020, balance sheet contained the following: Property, plant, and equipment: Land $ 118,000 Building $ 798,000 Less: Accumulated depreciation (190,000 ) 608,000 Equipment 174,450 Less: Accumulated depreciation ? ? Total property, plant, and equipment ? The land and building were purchased at the beginning of 2016. Straight-line depreciation is used and a residual value of $38,000 for the building is anticipated. The equipment is comprised of the following three machines: Machine Cost Date Acquired Residual Value Life (in Years) 101 $ 67,800 1/1/2018 $ 6,800 10 102 78,200 6/30/2019 7,800 8 103 28,450 9/1/2020 2,800 9 The straight-line method is used to determine depreciation on the equipment. On March 31, 2021, Machine 102 was sold for $51,500. Early in 2021, the useful life of machine 101 was revised to seven years in total, and the residual value was revised to zero. Required: 1. Calculate the accumulated depreciation on the equipment at December 31, 2020. 2. Prepare the journal entry to record 2021 depreciation on machine 102 up to the date of sale. 3. Calculate the gain or loss on the sale of machine 102. 4. Prepare the journal entry for the sale of machine 102. 5. Prepare the 2021 year-end journal entries to record depreciation on the building and remaining equipment.

Yellowstone Mining Company had total depletable capitalized costs of $665,000 for a mine acquired in early 2019. It was estimated that the mine contained 950,000 tons of recoverable ore when production began. During 2019, 47,500 tons were mined, and 174,800 tons were mined in 2020. Required: 1. Compute the depletion expense in 2019 and 2020 for financial accounting purposes. 2-a. In 2019, 47,500 tons of ore were sold for $475,000. For tax purposes, operating expenses of the mine were $600,000. The taxpayer may deduct either cost depletion or percentage depletion, which for the type ore produced is 8 percent of production sold from the mine. (Assume, however, that percentage depletion is limited to the amount of net income from the property.) What would be the amount of percentage depletion allowable in 2019? 2-b. What would be the amount of cost depletion allowable for tax purposes in 2019, assuming that capitalized mineral costs are the same for tax purposes as for financial accounting purposes? 2-c. What will be the amount of depletion based on cost that the company could deduct on its tax return in 2020 if it deducts percentage depletion in 2019? 2-d. Suppose that in the first three years of the mine’s life, the company took percentage depletion totaling $820,000. In the fifth year of the mine’s life, production proceeds were $5,300,000. How much percentage depletion could the company deduct in the fifth year, considering allowable percentage depletion rate is 8%?

The balances in the accounts of Maybe Ltd at 30 June 2019 and 30 June 2020 are:

Other information:

Share capital is increased by the bonus issue of 24 000 shares for $1.00 each out of retained earnings. Plant is acquired during the period at a cost of $36 000, while plant with a carrying amount of $nil (cost of $24 000, accumulated depreciation of $24 000) is scrapped.

Required:

a)      Reconstruct the allowance for doubtful debts and accounts receivable.

b)      Reconstruct inventory and accounts payable

c)      Reconstruct accrued salaries

d)      Reconstruct property, plant and equipment and accumulated depreciation

e) Present a statement of cash flow for Maybe Ltd for the year ended 30 june 2020

PLEASE DO NOT COPY OTHERS ANSWERS

New York City is the most expensive city in the United States for lodging. The mean hotel room rate is $204 per night. Assume that room rates are normally distributed with a standard deviation of $55.

(a)

What is the probability that a hotel room costs $265 or more per night? (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(b)

What is the probability that a hotel room costs less than $120 per night? (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(c)

What is the probability that a hotel room costs between $210 and $300 per night? (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(d)

What is the cost in dollars of the 10% most expensive hotel rooms in New York City? (Round your answer to the nearest cent.)

New York City is the most expensive city in the United States for lodging. The mean hotel room rate is $204 per night.† Assume that room rates are normally distributed with a standard deviation of $55.

(a)

What is the probability that a hotel room costs $255 or more per night? (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(b)

What is the probability that a hotel room costs less than $130 per night? (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(c)

What is the probability that a hotel room costs between $200 and $280 per night? (Round your answer to four decimal places.)

(d)

What is the cost in dollars of the 20% most expensive hotel rooms in New York City? (Round your answer to the nearest cent.)

$

Coronary artery disease is a common type of heart disease and the leading cause of death among both men and women in the United States. In this assignment, you will explore this disease in more detail using the scenario below.

Scenario:
One of your aging relatives is sedentary and smokes cigarettes. Out of concern for his health, you decide to research more about this disease.

To complete this assignment, do the following:

1. Research this disease using a minimum of 2 sources.
2. In a minimum of 2 pages (not counting the references page), address the following:
   • Explain how coronary artery disease develops in the human body.
   • Describe the ways that your relative can prevent the onset of this disease.
   • Explain what treatment options exist if steps to prevent the disease fail.
3. Include a references page at the end of your document, formatted using the APA guidelines, that lists your research sources.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. McDade & Sons, Inc., 928 F.Supp.2d 1120 (2013), United States District Court for Arizona

Norton’s Country Corner (Norton’s) is a cowboy bar located in Queen Creek, Arizona. The bar is owned by McDade & Sons, Inc., which is solely owned by Nancy McDade. Live bands play country-and-western music at Norton’s on various nights of the week. Certain copyright owners of music have authorized Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), to license the use of their copyright songs to broadcasters and to owners of concert halls, restaurants, and nightclubs for live performances of the copyrighted music. BMI attends public performances of music to determine whether any copyrights it is authorized to license are being performed without the license.

One night, a BMI representative attended a live band performance at Norton’s bar and recorded the songs played by the band that night. The audio recording showed that 13 copyrighted songs that BMI was authorized to license were played by the band at Norton’s without the required license. The songs included classics originally sung by famous artists, such as “All My Ex’s Live in Texas” (George Strait), “Baby Don’t Get Hooked on Me” (Mac Brown), “Brown Eyed Girl” (Van Morrison), and “Ring of Fire” (Johnny Cash). BMI sued McDade & Sons, Inc., and Nancy McDade in U.S. District Court for copyright infringement. The defendants argued they had not committed copyright infringement and that copyright law did not apply to owners of small establishments.

Answer the following questions in complete sentences:

1. Who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant in this case?
2. What arguments does the plaintiff have in support of its copyright infringement claim?
3. What arguments does the defendant have in support of their claim that they did not infringe on BMI’s copyright?
4. Do you think the defendants are liable for copyright infringement? Why or why not?

Lineberryv.State Farm Fire Cas. Co.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville DivisionApr 4, 1995

William Edward Farmer, Lebanon, TN, Susan Kerr Lee, John P. Konvalinka, Grant, Konvalinka Grubbs, P.C., Chattanooga, TN, Michael E. Galligan, Galligan Newman, McMinnville, TN, for Dewey Lineberry.

John W. Wagster, Hollins, Wagster Yarbrough, Nashville, TN, for State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co.

ECHOLS, District Judge.

Presently pending before this Court are Plaintiff Lineberry's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff Robinson's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons outlined herein, Plaintiff Lineberry's motion is GRANTED, Plaintiff Robinson's motion is GRANTED, and Defendant State Farm's motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs, Dewey Lineberry and Bill Robinson, seek a declaratory judgment requiring State Farm Fire Casualty Co. ("State Farm") to defend and indemnify them against actions in state court pursuant to personal liability policies of insurance issued by State Farm to Lineberry and Robinson. Lineberry and Robinson originally filed these actions in the Circuit Court of Wilson County, Tennessee, but State Farm subsequently removed them to this Court. Upon their removal, the two cases were consolidated, as the underlying facts and insurance policies are identical.

Plaintiffs are currently defending four separate actions brought in the Circuit Court of Wilson County, Tennessee by four women. The allegations of all four suits are essentially the same. Lineberry apparently had sexual relationships with the four women over the period of time stated in the lawsuits. In the course of building himself a new office building, Lineberry enlisted the help of Robinson to construct a "secret" viewing room adjoining the recreation room and the restroom of Lineberry's personal office. Two-way mirrors were constructed into the walls of the recreation room and restroom so that anyone in the viewing room could look through the mirrors and observe occupants of the recreation room and bathroom without the occupants' knowledge. The occupants of the recreation room and restroom could see only their own reflections in the mirrors. Lineberry and Robinson set up a video camera in the viewing room so that the persons and activities in the recreation room and restroom could secretly be filmed through the two-way mirrors.

On occasions Lineberry brought the unsuspecting females to his office where Robinson, who was hiding in the viewing room, secretly videotaped their sexual activities. Lineberry contends this scheme was approved or suggested by his attorney as a way to preserve proof of his sexual activities in the event one of his unsuspecting female guests falsely accused him of some impropriety. He maintains that this extraordinary precaution was taken only for his own protection, and that he had no intention of disclosing the video tapes of his sexual escapades to any other person. At some later time, Lineberry and his attorney had a dispute. Subsequently, Lineberry's attorney notified the Wilson County District Attorney of Lineberry's clandestine videotaping activities. After a search warrant was obtained, Lineberry's office was searched, and the tapes were seized by local law enforcement officials. The women depicted in the videotapes were then asked to come to the Sheriff's Department, identify themselves on the videotapes, and explain their actions. All four women deny they were aware they had been filmed.

Each of the four women filed a separate lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Wilson County. The suits charge Lineberry and Robinson with outrageous conduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud or constructive fraud, misrepresentation, appropriation, and invasion of their rights to privacy. Each of the women seek recovery for humiliation, mental distress, and emotional pain  and suffering which resulted from the actions of Lineberry and Robinson.

Both Lineberry and Robinson possess personal liability umbrella insurance policies with State Farm. They contend that pursuant to the provisions of those policies, State Farm must defend and indemnify them against the claims for invasion of privacy in the four lawsuits filed in Wilson County, Tennessee.

It is undisputed that both policies contain the same language relating to a covered "loss." Pursuant to the policies, if the insureds "are legally obligated to pay damages for a loss, [State Farm] will pay [the insured's] net loss minus the retained limit." (Docket Entry No. 44, Exhibit 1 at 3.) It also is undisputed that there is no retained limit in either Lineberry's or Robinson's policy. Therefore, for any losses covered by these policies, State Farm would be liable for the entire loss, up to the policy limit.

"Loss," as defined under the terms of both policies, means "an accident that results in personal injury or property damage during the policy period." (Id. at 1 (emphasis added).) "Personal injury," in turn, is defined as:

a. bodily harm, sickness, disease, shock, mental anguish or mental injury . . .;

b. false arrest, false imprisonment, wrongful eviction, wrongful detention, malicious prosecution or humiliation;

c. libel, slander, defamation of character or invasion of rights of privacy; and

d. assault and battery.

(Id. at 2 (emphasis added).)

The policies also contain a provision which excludes coverage for intentional acts or acts which are expected. Specifically, the policies provide that State Farm:

will not provide insurance . . . for personal injury or property damage:

a. which is either expected or intended by you; or

b. to any person or property which is the result of your willful and malicious act, no matter at whom the act was directed. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiffs contend that State Farm, having specifically insured them against losses caused by the invasion of the right to privacy, must both defend them against the claims presented in the four lawsuits and indemnify them for any damages awarded to the four women. State Farm contends it is not required to defend or indemnify against these claims because the losses were not the result of an "accident" and the claims fall within the policy's exclusion for intentional or expected acts.

Plaintiffs counter Defendant's arguments by pointing to the language in the policy which defines "personal injury" by specifically listing a number of intentional torts, including invasion of the right of privacy. In other words, the losses insured against are those resulting in personal injury, which under the policy's definition includes certain types of intentional torts. An intentional tort is a civil wrong or injury which occurs as a result of the intentional act of another person. For example, one cannot commit an act of assault and battery accidentally. Likewise, one cannot be liable for malicious prosecution without intending to prosecute the victim. Plaintiffs further contend that one cannot invade a person's privacy by accident, because invasion of the right of privacy is inherently an intentional tort. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege that State Farm insured them against damages resulting from certain specific intentional torts, namely, invasion of right of privacy. However, in a separate section of the State Farm policy, under "Exclusions," the policy excludes coverage for injuries which were "intended or expected." Plaintiffs contend these provisions result in contradictory coverage or coverage which is ambiguous or merely illusory. Plaintiffs, therefore, maintain that the policy's ambiguity should be construed against the drafter, State Farm, and in Plaintiffs' favor.

Defendant alleges that the insurance policy provisions are not contradictory and the coverage is not illusory, because an invasion of the right to privacy is not necessarily an intentional tort. If that were correct, the policy would not necessarily be ambiguous, as the policy would cover injuries resulting from unintentional invasions of the right of  privacy and would exclude those which are intentional.

Because there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the crux of the dispute is the legal interpretation of the insurance policies, the parties have agreed to have the case resolved by means of cross-motions for summary judgment. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court must construe the evidence produced in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all justifiable inferences in his or her favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513-14, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A party may obtain summary judgment if the evidentiary material on file shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

It is well-established that an insurance policy, which is nothing more than a contract between the insurance company and the insured, should be given its plain meaning. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 406 F.2d 409, 410 (6th Cir. 1969); Purdy v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 586 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979). However, where policy language is ambiguous, "the policy must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer." Purdy, 586 S.W.2d at 130; Oliver, 406 F.2d at 410; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Tenn. 1991). Exclusionary clauses are to be strictly construed against the insurer. Phillips v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 395 F.2d 166, 167 (6th Cir. 1968); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Aetna Casualty Sur. Co., 491 S.W.2d 363, 367 (Tenn. 1973).

There are four kinds of invasion of rights to privacy: (1) appropriation; (2) unreasonable intrusion; (3) public disclosure of private facts; and (4) false light publicity. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A (1977). Therefore, the inquiry regarding the necessary intent for invasion of the right to privacy requires that this Court examine all four forms of that tort. (Please look the comment section for the rest of the case)

questions

#1. The procedural history of the case/litigation (i.e. what happened since the filling of the petition/complaint within the court system including important motions and court rulings?)

#2. What is the court's decision?