Oak View Chemicals produces two main products, M-10 and M-20, and one by-product, B-60, from a single input, Chem-X. Products M-10 and M-20 can either be sold at split-off or processed further and sold. A given batch begins with 1,160 gallons of Chem-X with a cost of $104,400. Additional information regarding a batch follows. If Processed Further Product Units Produced Unit Sales Value at Split-off Additional Costs (Per Unit) Sales Value (Per Unit) M-10 25,520 $ 5.00 $ 2.00 $ 6.00 M-20 16,240 $ 10.00 $ 4.00 $ 16.00 B-60 5,800 $ 0.50 NA NA Oak View Chemicals uses the net realizable at split-off approach to allocate joint costs and treats the sales value of the by-product B-60 as other income. Required: The joint cost allocated to product M-10 at Oak View Chemicals for a given batch is:

Jen heard that the bank where she kept her money was going to close for good. jen said she wasn't worried

In year 1, the bennetts' 25-year-old daughter, jane, is a full-time student at an out-of-state university but she plans to return home after the school year ends. in previous years, jane has never worked and her parents have always been able to claim her as a dependent. in year 1, a kind neighbor offers to pay for all of jane's educational and living expenses. which of the following statements is most accurate regarding whether jane's parents would be allowed to claim an exemption for jane in year 1 assuming the neighbor pays for all of jane's support? a. no, jane must include her neighbor's gift as income and thus fails the gross income test for a qualifying relative. b.yes, because she is a full-time student and does not provide more than half of her own support, jane is considered her parent's qualifying child. c.no, jane is too old to be considered a qualifying child and fails the support test of a qualifying relative. d.yes, because she is a student, her absence is considered as "temporary." consequently she meets the residence test and is a considered a qualifying child of the bennetts.

David burdick is the ceo of acme bubblegum, a successful public company. as one of the cofounders of the company, burdick has enjoyed speaking and writing about the success of acme bubblegum for several years. typically, he speaks at conferences or directly to the press, but recently, he has been blogging about his firm anonymously. specifically, he defended a recent advertising campaign that was unpopular among consumers and pointedly attacked one of acme bubblegum’s competitors. burdick deeply enjoys his anonymous blogging and believes that none of his readers actually know that he works for acme bubblegum. should burdick be allowed to praise his company’s performance anonymously online? should he be allowed to attack his competitors without disclosing his relationship with the company? how would you feel if the ceo of a company at which you shopped was secretly writing criticisms of his or her competition? how would you feel if you knew a writer for your favorite blog was actually closely involved in a company that the blog discussed? 1. define the ethical issue? 2. who are the primary stakeholders? 3. what are the possible alternatives? 4. how could you evaluate the ethical implications of the alternative actions (use appropriate decision rules)? 5. what action would you recommend and why?