Frantic fast foods had earnings after taxes of $1,380,000 in 20x1 with 301,000 shares outstanding. on january 1, 20x2, the firm issued 12,000 new shares. because of the proceeds from these new shares and other operating improvements, earnings after taxes increased by 30 percent. compute earnings per share for the year 20x1

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.

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?