roblem 11-36 (LO. 2, 11) a. Heather wants to invest $40,000 in a relatively safe venture and has discovered two alternatives that would produce the following reportable ordinary income and loss over the next three years: Year Alternative 1 Income (Loss) Alternative 2 Income (Loss) 1 ($20,000) ($48,000) 2 (28,000) 32,000 3 72,000 40,000 She is interested in the after-tax effects of these alternatives over a three-year horizon. Assume that Heather's investment portfolio produces sufficient passive income to offset any potential passive loss that may arise from these alternatives, that her cost of capital is 6% (the present value factors are .9434, .8900, and .8396), that she is in the 25% tax bracket, that each investment alternative possesses equal growth potential, and that each alternative exposes her to comparable financial risk. In addition, assume that in the loss years for each alternative, there is no cash flow from or to the investment (i.e., the loss is due to depreciation), while in those years when the income is positive, cash flows to Heather equal the amount of the income. Based on these facts, compute the present value (PV) of these two investment alternatives. Round the present value to the nearest whole number. Alternative 1 Income Tax Cost/ Benefit After-Tax Benefit 6% PV Factor Present Value Year 1 ($20,000) $ $ .9434 $ Year 2 (28,000) $ $ .8900 $ Year 3 72,000 $ $ .8396 $ Total present value $ Alternative 2 Income Tax Cost/ Benefit After-Tax Benefit 6% PV Factor Present Value Year 1 ($48,000) $ $ .9434 $ Year 2 32,000 $ $ .8900 $ Year 3 40,000 $ $ .8396 $ Total present value $ b. benefit is greater primarily because of the flow of the benefits and the effect of the at-risk rules on those benefits.