1.Su lamp ltd experienced strong profit growth during the early 2000s. However, an industrial dispute in the transport industry affected the supply of electrical parts and the company sustained a $400000 loss during 2009.The management of Su lamp ltd believed that it would be advantageous to carry the loss forward to 2010 for income tax purposes and was confident that there would be sufficient profit in 2010 to absorb the loss carry-forward. The 2009 income tax rate was 30 per cent. 2.At the start of 2009,Su Lamp Ltd entered into a contract with Pollett Led. Pollett Ltd was to build a new factory for Su Lamp, with building to start in January 2010. The contract price was $1000000 and the project was estimated to take two years to complete. Su Lamp Ltd was to pay Pollett Ltd $300000 when it was 50 per cent completed and $400000 when it was 100 per cent completed. 3.Kin Ltd filed a lawsuit against Su Lamp Ltd for $1000000 for patent infringement in April 2009. The companies expected that it would take approximately 18 months before the lawsuit was settled. 4.An employee suffered eye damage when a piece of glass exploded as she worked on the production line. She sued the company for damages and was awarded $400000. Su Lamp Ltd planned to appeal. 5. Su Lamp Ltd contracted with the local city council to provide high-powered lighting for all function areas at the City Hall. The cost was estimated to be $1000000. The contract specifies a payment to Su Lamp Ltd of 15 per cent above cost. 6. At year-end, the executives decided to pay a bonus of $15000 to their Danish sales manager, Rasmus Winters, for his performance during the year. However, due to cash constraints, the bonus was not to be paid until February 2010