I believe that the answer to the question provided above is <span>worldcom try to structure the transactions to get a “step-up” in the tax bases of mci’s assets because he doesn't have enough influence to do so.</span>
Hope my answer would be a great help for you. If you have more questions feel free to ask here at Brainly.
Answer:
Total work in process = $12,900
Explanation:
Provided information,
Cost incurred during the month on this order
Direct Materials = $2,100
Direct Labor = $3,600
Provided overheads are 200% of the direct labor cost = $3,600 
200% = $7,200
Thus month end balance of work in process = $2,100 + $3,600 + $7,200
Total work in process = $12,900
Note: additional information regarding expenses to be incurred is to be ignored, and the above value is the value of work in process.
Total work in process = $12,900
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
Answer:
A) speaking clearly
Explanation:
Enunciation refers to pronounce the words clearly. A correct enunciation is when a person is able to pronounce the words in a proper way and expressing them well and like that allowing people to understand everything that is being said.
