In 2012, byron was granted 4.000 stock options by his employer, buxton corporation. the options vested at the date of grant and must be exercised within 8 years from the grant date. each option allowed byron to purchase one share of buxton corporation stock for $12 per share. on the date the options were granted to byron in 2011, buxton corporation stock was selling for $12 per share. in 2017, when buxton corporation stock was selling for $23 per share, byron exercised all his options and purchased 4,000 shares of buxton corporation. in 2019. byron sold all 4,000 shares in buxton corporation stock for $39 per share. a. what are the federal income tax consequences to byron and buxton corporation in 2012. 2017 and 2019 if the buxton corporation options granted to byron were nonqualified stock options (nqsos)? you may ignore alternative minimum tax (amt) for this question. show your work and explain your calculations. (4 points) what are the federal income tax consequences to byron and buxton corporation in 2012, 2017, and 2019 if the buxton corporation options granted to byron were qualified incentive stock options (isos)? you may ignore alternative minimum tax (amt) for this question. show your work and explain your calculations. (4 points)

Which of the following explains why the government sets a required reserve ratio for private banks? a. to allow the government to control the interest rate charged on loans. b. to prevent banks from printing too much money and causing inflation. c. to make sure banks don't run out of money when customers make withdrawals. d. to enable the regulation of risk levels in the decision process of offering loans. 2b2t

What two things do you consider when evaluating the time value of money

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.