|
|
|
Quiz 3 module 1.docx
Quiz_3_module_1.docx
Showing 1-2 out of 2
Quiz 3 module 1.docx-Soliciting sales Making sales...
Quiz_3_module_1.docx-Soliciting sales Making sales Replacing damaged
Quiz 3 module 1.docx-Soliciting sal...
Quiz_3_module_1.docx-Soliciting sales Making sales Replacing damaged
Page 1
Soliciting sales
Making sales
Replacing damaged property
Real and tangible personal property of the taxpayer in California
Grading Summary
These are the automatically computed
results of your exam. Grades for essay
questions, and comments from your
instructor, are in the "Details" section
below.
Date Taken:
2/11/2017
Time Spent:
26 min , 35 secs
Points Received:
6 / 10
(60%)
Question Type:
# Of Questions:
# Correct:
Multiple Choice
5
3
Grade Details - All Questions
Question 1.Question :
Which of the following activities performed by company employees within
a state, if not de minimis, would create nexus with the state for income tax
purposes?
Student Answer:
Solicitation of orders for sales of tangible personal property
Carrying samples only for display or distribution without charge
None of the above
Points Received:
0 of 2
Comments:
Question 2.Question :
Which of the following in-state activities of an independent contractor is
not protected by Public Law 86-272?
Student Answer:
Maintaining an office
Points Received:
0 of 2
Comments:
Question 3.Question :
Under the state's factor presence nexus statute, a corporation is considered
to be doing business in California if:
Student Answer:
Sales of the taxpayer in California exceed the lesser of $5 million or
20 percent of the taxpayer's total sales.
exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 25 percent of the taxpayer's total real and
tangible
personal
property.
The amount paid in California by the taxpayer for compensation
exceeds the lesser of $500,000 or 15 percent of the total compensation paid
by the taxpayer.
None of the above
Installation of company products after delivery
Page 2
A three-factor apportionment formula is constitutionally required.
Iowa was not constitutionally prohibited from using a sales-only
Upheld the lower court's decision that the taxpayer could use its
Points Received:
2 of 2
Comments:
Question 4.Question :
In Moorman Manufacturing Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that:
Student Answer:
apportionment
formula.
There are no restrictions on a state's choice of apportionment
formulas.
None of the above
Points Received:
2 of 2
Comments:
Question 5.Question :
In FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Student Answer:
average receipts per mile in Pennsylvania to calculate its revenue miles in
Pennsylvania
Reversed the lower court's decision
Determined that the method the taxpayer used to compute its revenue
miles in Pennsylvania was inconsistent with the plain language of the
statute
None of the above
Points Received:
2 of 2
Comments:
* Times are displayed in (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
Ace your assessments! Get Better Grades
Browse thousands of Study Materials & Solutions from your Favorite Schools
Texas A%26M University-Sa...
Texas_A%26M_University-San_Antonio
School:
Managerial_Accounting
Course:
Great resource for chem class. Had all the past labs and assignments
Leland P.
Santa Clara University
Introducing Study Plan
Using AI Tools to Help you understand and remember your course concepts better and faster than any other resource.
Find the best videos to learn every concept in that course from Youtube and Tiktok without searching.
Save All Relavent Videos & Materials and access anytime and anywhere
Prepare Smart and Guarantee better grades
Know more
Students also viewed documents
lab 18.docx
lab_18.docx
Course
Course
3
Module5QuizSTA2023.d...
Module5QuizSTA2023.docx.docx
Course
Course
10
Week 7 Test Math302....
Week_7_Test_Math302.docx.docx
Course
Course
30
Chapter 1 Assigment ...
Chapter_1_Assigment_Questions.docx.docx
Course
Course
5
Week 4 tests.docx.do...
Week_4_tests.docx.docx
Course
Course
23
Week 6 tests.docx.do...
Week_6_tests.docx.docx
Course
Course
106
