The primary difference between ordinary repairs and extraordinary repairs is:
A. ordinary repairs are expenditures for routine maintenance and upkeep, whereas extraordinary repairs increase an assets economic usefulness in the future through increased efficiency, capacity, or longer life.
B. extraordinary repairs are expenditures, not expenses.
C. ordinary repairs cost less.
D. extraordinary repairs only maintain the asset for a short time, whereas ordinary repairs increase the usefulness of assets beyond their original condition.
Answer: A
You might also like to view...
Which of the following is not a true statement regarding SFAS No. 8?
a. SFAS was faithful to the historical cost accounting model, but from an economic viewpoint, it produced illogical results. b. SFAS No. 8 required the temporal method of translation. c. In empirical studies made of the economic impact of SFAS No. 8 on American multinational enterprises, only foreign exchange risk and management policies regarding hedging of foreign currency exposures were found to have any possible impact. d. SFAS No. 8 was consistent with the foreign currency orientation.
What do corporation firms investing in other early-stage companies use to invest?
a. Debt financing b. Commercial loans c. Corporate venture capital d. None of the above
Knowledge that can be readily articulated, codified, and shared best describes
A) tacit knowledge. B) procedural knowledge. C) explicit knowledge. D) declarative knowledge.
What must a plaintiff show to successfully sue for malicious prosecution?
a. That a prior proceeding was instituted against him or her maliciously and without probable cause or factual basis. b. That a prior proceeding was instituted against him or her maliciously and without probable cause or factual basis, and that the earlier case was resolved in the plaintiff's favor. c. That a prior proceeding was instituted against him or her negligently and that the earlier case was resolved in the plaintiff's favor. d. That a prior proceeding was instituted maliciously, that the plaintiff was a public official or public figure, and that the earlier case was resolved in the plaintiff's favor.