hellotayssir/FinQA_TAT-QA_financial_finetuning_dataset huggingface dataset:
Medical Segment Results
Below is a table summarizing results for the fiscal years ended:
Net Sales. The Medical segment had $1.1 million of net sales in fiscal 2019, compared to $0.3 million of net sales in fiscal 2018. The increase was due to new business gained in fiscal 2019.
Gross Profit. Medical segment gross profit was a loss of $2.8 million in fiscal 2019, compared to a loss of $3.5 million in fiscal 2018. The improvement primarily relates to an increase in sales volumes during fiscal 2019.
Loss from Operations. Medical segment loss from operations decreased $2.8 million to $8.6 million in fiscal 2019, compared to $11.4 million in fiscal 2018. The decrease was due to an improvement in gross profit and lower selling and administrative expenses. Selling and administrative expenses were reduced by lower marketing and professional fee expenses, partially offset by initiatives to reduce overall costs and improve operational profitability of $0.9 million.
Table:
(Dollars in Millions) | April 27, 2019 | April 28, 2018 | Net Change ($) | Net Change (%)
Net Sales | $1.1 | $0.3 | $0.8 | 266.7 %
Gross Profit | $(2.8) | $(3.5) | $0.7 | 20.0 %
Loss from Operations | $(8.6) | $(11.4) | $2.8 | 24.6 %


Question: What is the average Gross Profit for Fiscal Year Ended April 28, 2018 to Fiscal Year Ended April 27, 2019?
Answer: -3.15
Calculation: -(2.8+3.5) / 2
Gross Profit
Gross profit in fiscal year 2018 increased to $382.3 million, or 17.7 percent of net sales from $300.8 million, or 16.7 percent of net sales for fiscal year 2017. Excluding the impact of the surcharge revenue, our gross margin in fiscal year 2018 was 21.3 percent compared to 19.3 percent in fiscal year 2017. The results reflect the impact of stronger demand and improved product mix coupled with operating cost improvements compared to fiscal year 2017.
Our surcharge mechanism is structured to recover increases in raw material costs, although in certain cases with a lag effect as discussed above. While the surcharge generally protects the absolute gross profit dollars, it does have a dilutive effect on gross margin as a percent of sales. The following represents a summary of the dilutive impact of the surcharge on gross margin. We present and discuss these financial measures because management believes removing the impact of surcharge provides a more consistent and meaningful basis for comparing results of operations from period to period. See the section “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for further discussion of these financial measures.
Table:
 | Fiscal Year | 
($ in millions) | 2018 | 2017
Net sales | $2,157.7 | $1,797.6
Less: surcharge revenue | 365.4 | 239.2
Net sales excluding surcharge revenue | $1,792.3 | $1,558.4
Gross profit | $382.3 | $300.8
Gross margin | 17.7% | 16.7%
Gross margin excluding surcharge revenue | 21.3% | 19.3%


Question: What was the change in gross profit in 2018 from 2017?
Answer: 81.5
Calculation: 382.3-300.8
Adjusted EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA represents our net loss before interest and investment income, net and interest expense, provision for income taxes, depreciation and amortization expense, loss on extinguishment of convertible notes and stock-based compensation expense. We do not consider these items to be indicative of our core operating performance. The items that are non-cash include depreciation and amortization expense and stock-based compensation expense.
Adjusted EBITDA is a measure used by management to understand and evaluate our core operating performance and trends and to generate future operating plans, make strategic decisions regarding the allocation of capital and invest in initiatives that are focused on cultivating new markets for our solutions. In particular, the exclusion of certain expenses in calculating adjusted EBITDA facilitates comparisons of our operating performance on a period-to-period basis.
Adjusted EBITDA is not a measure calculated in accordance with GAAP. We believe that adjusted EBITDA provides useful information to investors and others in understanding and evaluating our operating results in the same manner as our management and board of directors. Nevertheless, use of adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool, and you should not consider it in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of our financial results as reported under GAAP.
Some of these limitations are: (1) although depreciation and amortization are non-cash charges, the capitalized software that is amortized will need to be replaced in the future, and adjusted EBITDA does not reflect cash capital expenditure requirements for such replacements or for new capital expenditure requirements; (2) adjusted EBITDA does not reflect changes in, or cash requirements for, our working capital needs;
(3) adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the potentially dilutive impact of equity-based compensation; (4) adjusted EBITDA does not reflect tax payments or receipts that may represent a reduction or increase in cash
available to us; and (5) other companies, including companies in our industry, may calculate adjusted EBITDA or similarly titled measures
differently, which reduces the usefulness of the metric as a comparative measure.
Because of these and other limitations, you should consider adjusted EBITDA alongside our other GAAP-based financial performance measures, net loss and our other GAAP financial results. The following table presents a reconciliation of adjusted EBITDA to net loss, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, for each of the periods indicated (in thousands):
Table:
 |  | Year Ended December 31, | 
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
Net loss | $(52,250) | $(47,515) | $(19,634)
Interest and investment (income) expense, net | 2,979 | 4,504 | 216
Provision for income taxes | 425 | 796 | 47
Depreciation and amortization | 19,671 | 13,693 | 10,207
Loss on extinguishment of convertible notes | 1,406 | — | —
Stock-based compensation | 33,489 | 25,825 | 9,299
Adjusted EBITDA | $5,720 | $(2,697) | $135


Question: What is the change in the Provision for income taxes from 2018 to 2019?
Answer: -371
Calculation: 425 - 796
Remaining Performance Obligation Associated with Non-Lease Arrangements
A majority of the Company’s revenue is provided over a contract term. When allocating the total contract transaction price to identified performance obligations, a portion of the total transaction price relates to performance obligations that are yet to be satisfied or are partially satisfied as of the end of the reporting period.
In determining the transaction price allocated to remaining performance obligations, the Company does not include non- recurring charges and estimates for usage.
Remaining performance obligations associated with the Company’s contracts reflect recurring charges billed, adjusted to reflect estimates for sales incentives and revenue adjustments.
The table below reflects an estimate of the remaining transaction price of fixed fee, non-lease revenue arrangements to be recognized in the future periods presented. The table below does not include estimated amounts to be recognized in future periods associated with variable usage-based consideration.
Table:
 | Year Ended June 30, |  |  |  |  |  | 
 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Thereafter | Total
 | (in millions) |  |  |  |  |  | 
Reportable Segment |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
Zayo Networks | 621.4 | 295.9 | 117.4 | 36.7 | 14.1 | 17.5 | 1,103.0
zColo | 21.7 | 11.0 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 46.9
Allstream | 110.3 | 26.7 | 11.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | — | 150.7
Total | $753.4 | $333.6 | $135.4 | $41.8 | $16.9 | $19.5 | $1,300.6


Question: How much remaining transaction price of fixed fee, non-lease revenue arrangements does the company expect to recognize from Zayo Networks and zColo in 2020?
Answer: 643.1
Calculation: 621.4+21.7
(c) Allowance for Credit Loss Rollforward
The allowances for credit loss and the related financing receivables are summarized as follows (in millions):
Table:
 |  |  | CREDIT LOSS ALLOWANCES | 
 | Lease Receivables | Loan Receivables | Financed Service Contracts | Total
Allowance for credit loss as of July 28, 2018 | $135 | $60 | $10 | $205
Provisions (benefits) | (54) | 11 | 27 | (16)
Recoveries (write-offs), net | (14) | — | (28) | (42)
Foreign exchange and other | (21) | — | — | (21)
Allowance for credit loss as of July 27, 2019 | $46 | $71 | $9 | $126


Question: What were the total provisions (benefits)?
Answer: (16)
Note 15—Segments and Geographic Information
We operate in two reportable segments consisting of the Probe Cards Segment and the Systems Segment. Our chief operating decision maker ("CODM") is our Chief Executive Officer, who reviews operating results to make decisions about allocating resources and assessing performance for the entire company. The following table summarizes the operating results by reportable segment (dollars in thousands):
Operating results provide useful information to our management for assessment of our performance and results of operations. Certain components of our operating results are utilized to determine executive compensation along with other measures.
Corporate and Other includes unallocated expenses relating to amortization of intangible assets, share-based compensation expense, acquisition-related costs, including charges related to inventory stepped up to fair value, and other costs, which are not used in evaluating the results of, or in allocating resources to, our reportable segments. Acquisition-related costs include transaction costs and any costs directly related to the acquisition and integration of acquired businesses.
Table:
 |  |  | Fiscal 2019 | 
 | Probe Cards | Systems | Corporate and Other | Total
Revenues | $491,363 | $98,101 | $— | $589,464
Gross profit | $211,382 | $50,927 | $(24,813) | $237,496
Gross margin | 43.0 % | 51.9 % | — % | 40.3 %
 |  |  | Fiscal 2018 | 
 | Probe Cards | Systems | Corporate and Other | Total
Revenues | $434,269 | $95,406 | $— | $529,675
Gross profit | $187,320 | $47,074 | $(24,055) | $210,339
Gross margin | 43.1 % | 49.3 % | — % | 39.7 %
 |  |  | Fiscal 2017 | 
 | Probe Cards | Systems | Corporate and Other | Total
Revenues | $454,794 | $93,647 | $— | $548,441
Gross profit | $195,903 | $46,647 | $(26,953) | $215,597
Gross margin | 43.1 % | 49.8% | — % | 39.3 %


Question: What percentage of total revenue is probe cards revenue in 2017?
Answer: 0.83
Calculation: 454,794 / 548,441
(19) Income Taxes
Income tax expense (benefit) consists of the following (in millions):
On December 22, 2017, the Tax Reform Act was signed into law. Among other provisions, the Tax Reform Act reduced the federal statutory corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. During the fourth quarter of 2017, we recorded a one-time, noncash net tax benefit of $110.9 million related to the revaluation of our deferred income tax assets and liabilities as a result of the Tax Reform Act.
Table:
 |  | Year ended December 31, | 
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
Current: |  |  | 
Federal | $39.5 | $35.0 | $10.4
State | 9.7 | 9.4 | 5.3
Foreign | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9
Total current | 50.1 | 45.2 | 16.6
Deferred: |  |  | 
Federal | (0.2) | (2.3) | (87.5)
State | (8.0) | (5.2) | 9.1
Total deferred | (8.2) | (7.5) | (78.4)
Total income tax expense (benefit) | $41.9 | $37.7 | $(61.8)


Question: What was the current federal income tax expense in 2019?
Answer: 39.5
NAVIOS MARITIME HOLDINGS INC. NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars — except share data)
Chartered-out vessels, barges and pushboats:
The future minimum revenue, net of commissions, (i) for dry bulk vessels, expected to be earned on non-cancelable time charters; and (ii) for the Company’s logistics business, expected to be earned on non-cancelable time charters, COA’s with minimum guaranteed volumes and contracts with minimum guaranteed throughput in Navios Logistics’ ports expected to be earned on non-cancelable time charters, are as follows:
Revenues from time charters are not generally received when a vessel is off-hire, which includes time required for scheduled maintenance of the vessel.
Table:
 | Dry bulk vessels | Logistics business
2020 | 22,266 | 129,437
2021 | 4,607 | 97,544
2022 | 3,445 | 75,425
2023 | — | 69,250
2024 | — | 60,200
2025 and thereafter | — | 642,479
Total minimum revenue, net of commissions | $30,318 | $1,074,335


Question: What was the difference in the minimum revenue from dry bulk vessels between 2020 and 2021?
Answer: 17659
Calculation: 22,266-4,607
NAVIOS MARITIME HOLDINGS INC. NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars — except share data)
The Company entered into new lease liabilities amounting to $47,064 during the year ended December 31, 2019.
The table below provides the total amount of lease payments on an undiscounted basis on our chartered-in contracts, office lease agreements and land lease agreements as of December 31, 2019:
As of December 31, 2019, the weighted average remaining lease terms on our charter-in contracts, office lease agreements and land leases are 4.5 years, 1.9 years and 46.3 years, respectively.
Table:
 | Charter-in vessels in operation | Land Leases | Office space
December 31, 2020 | $109,574 | $556 | $753
December 31, 2021 | 85,399 | 556 | 356
December 31, 2022 | 57,282 | 556 | 101
December 31, 2023 | 47,603 | 556 | 81
December 31, 2024 | 34,025 | 556 | —
December 31, 2025 and thereafter | 33,481 | 23,002 | —
Total | $367,364 | $25,782 | $1,291
Operating lease liabilities, including current portion | $304,568 | $7,660 | $1,204
Discount based on incremental borrowing rate | $62,796 | $18,122 | $87


Question: What was the change in the payments for Charter-in vessels in operation between 2022 and 2023?
Answer: -9679
Calculation: 47,603-57,282
Semiconductor and IP Licensing Segment
(1) Excludes operating expenses which are not allocated on a segment basis.
Semiconductor and IP Licensing segment revenue for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $81.9 million as compared to $186.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, a decrease of $104.5 million. The decrease in revenue was due principally to revenue recorded in 2018 related to the Samsung settlement and license agreement executed in December 2018, partially offset by a one-time payment from a new license agreement signed in December 2019.
Table:
 |  | Years Ended December 31, | 
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
 |  | (in thousands) | 
Revenue: |  |  | 
Royalty and license fees | $81,943 | $186,425 | $205,809
Total revenue | 81,943 | 186,425 | 205,809
Operating expenses: |  |  | 
Research, development and other related costs | 28,732 | 27,514 | 30,039
Litigation | 3,471 | 26,099 | 36,209
Amortization | 11,871 | 19,906 | 21,590
Total operating expenses (1) | 44,074 | 73,519 | 87,838
Total operating income | $37,869 | $112,906 | $117,971


Question: What is the average revenue that the company received in the last three years, i.e. from 2017 to 2019?
Answer: 158059
Calculation: (81,943+186,425+205,809)/3
Billings
Billings represent the value of products and services invoiced to customers after receiving a purchase order from the customer and delivering products and services to them, or for which there is no right to a refund. Billings do not equate to statutory revenue.
Table:
 | Year-ended 31 March 2019 | Year-ended 31 March 2018 Restated See note 2
 | $M | $M
Revenue | 710.6 | 639.0
Net deferral of revenue (see note 23) | 49.7 | 129.6
Billings | 760.3 | 768.6
Currency revaluation | 25.9 | 18.7
Constant currency billings | 786.2 | 787.3


Question: What were the components in the table used to calculate Billings?
Answer: Revenue, Net deferral of revenue
Operating assets and liabilities
5 Trade and other receivables
(a) Trade receivables
(i) Classification as trade receivables
Trade receivables are amounts due from customers for goods sold or services performed in the ordinary course of business. They are generally due for settlement within 30 - 60 days and therefore are all classified as current. Trade receivables are recognised initially at the amount of consideration that is unconditional unless they contain significant financing components, when they are recognised at fair value. The Group holds the trade receivables with the objective to collect the contractual cash flows and therefore measures them subsequently at amortised cost using the effective interest method.
(ii) Fair values of trade and other receivables
Due to the short-term nature of the trade and other receivables, their carrying amount is considered to be the same as their fair value.
(iii) Impairment and risk exposure
Information about the Group's impairment policies, calculation of loss allowance and exposure to credit risk, foreign currency risk and interest rate risk can be found in note 15.
(b) Interest receivable
Interest receivable relates to interest accrued on term deposits. Credit risk of this is assessed in the same manner as cash and cash equivalents which is detailed in note 15.
Table:
 |  | 30 June 2019 | 30 June 2018
 | Note | $'000 | $'000
Trade receivables | 5(a) | 28,320 | 36,522
Loss allowance (see note 15(b)) |  | (741) | (1,254)
 |  | 27,579 | 35,268
Interest receivable | 5(b) | 54 | 27
GST receivable |  | 6,222 | 162
Other receivables |  | 1 | 1,629
Total |  | 33,856 | 37,086


Question: What was the difference between trade and GST receivables in 2018?
Answer: 36360
Calculation: 36,522 - 162
Factors affecting the tax expense for the year
The table below explains the differences between the expected tax expense, being the aggregate of the Group’s geographical split of profits multiplied by the relevant local tax rates and the Group’s total tax expense for each year.
Notes: 1 See note below regarding deferred tax asset recognition in Luxembourg and Spain on pages 140 and 141
2 2018 includes the impact of closing tax audits across the Group during the year, including in Germany and Romania
3 Includes a €42 million credit (2018: €15 million charge, 2017 €95 million charge) relating to the combination of Vodafone India with Idea Cellular
Table:
 | 2019 €m | 2018 €m | 2017 €m
Continuing (loss)/profit before tax as shown in the consolidated income statement | (2,613) | 3,878 | 2,792
Aggregated expected income tax (credit)/expense | (457) | 985 | 795
Impairment losses with no tax effect | 807 | – | –
Disposal of Group investments | – | 55 | (271)
Effect of taxation of associates and joint ventures, reported within profit before tax | 262 | 90 | 23
(Recognition)/derecognition of deferred tax assets for losses in Luxembourg and Spain1 | 1,186 | (1,583) | 1,603
Deferred tax following revaluation of investments in Luxembourg1 | (488) | (330) | (329)
Previously unrecognised temporary differences we expect to use in the future | – | – | (15)
Previously unrecognised temporary differences utilised in the year | – | (29) | (11)
Current year temporary differences (including losses) that we currently do not expect to use | 78 | 20 | 139
Adjustments in respect of prior year tax liabilities2 | (94) | (244) | (107)
Revaluation of assets for tax purposes | – | – | (39)
Impact of tax credits and irrecoverable taxes | 79 | 93 | 98
Deferred tax on overseas earnings3 | (39) | 24 | 26
Effect of current year changes in statutory tax rates on deferred tax balances | (2) | (44) | 2,755
Financing costs not deductible for tax purposes | 67 | 23 | 25
Expenses not deductible (income not taxable) for tax purposes | 97 | 61 | 72
Income tax expense/(credit) | 1,496 | (879) | 4,764


Question: What is the 2017 deferred tax on overseas earnings, excluding the 95€m charge relating to the combination of Vodafone India with Idea Cellular?
Answer: -69
Calculation: 26-95
5.5 Other Operating Expense Items
Note: (1) The non-audit fees for the current financial year ended 31 March 2019 included S$0.4 million and S$0.2million paid to KPMG LLP, Singapore and KPMG, Australia in respect of tax services, certification and review for regulatory purposes. In the previous financial year, the non-audit fees included S$0.2 million and S$0.3 million paid to Deloitte & Touche LLP, Singapore, and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Australia, respectively in respect of tax services, certification and review for regulatory purposes.
The Audit Committee had undertaken a review of the non-audit services provided by the auditors, KPMG LLP, and in the opinion of the Audit Committee, these services did not affect the independence of the auditors. The Audit Committee had undertaken a review of the non-audit services provided by the auditors, KPMG LLP, and in the opinion of the Audit Committee, these services did not affect the independence of the auditors.
Table:
 | Group | 
 | 2019 | 2018
 | S$ Mil | S$ Mil
Operating expenses included the following: |  | 
Auditors' remuneration |  | 
- KPMG LLP, Singapore | 2.4 | -
- KPMG, Australia | 1.2 | -
- Other KPMG offices | 1.3 | -
- Deloitte & Touche LLP, Singapore | - | 1.5
- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Australia | - | 1.2
- Other Deloitte & Touche offices | - | 2.1
Non-audit fees (1) paid to |  | 
- KPMG LLP, Singapore | 0.4 | -
- KPMG, Australia | 0.4 | -
- Other KPMG offices | 0.1 | -
- Deloitte & Touche LLP, Singapore | - - | 0.3
- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Australia | - | 0.3
- Other Deloitte & Touche offices | - | 0.2
Impairment of trade receivables | 121.8 | 128.0
Allowance for inventory obsolescence | 1.1 | 7.1
Operating lease payments | 437.2 | 470.7


Question: What is the key focus of note 5.5?
Answer: Other Operating Expense Items
(12) Basic and Diluted Net Loss per Share
Basic net loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is computed by giving effect to all potential dilutive shares of common stock. Basic and diluted net loss per share of common stock were the same for all periods presented as the impact of all potentially dilutive securities outstanding was anti-dilutive. The Company uses the if converted method for calculating any potential dilutive effect on diluted loss per share.
The following common equivalent shares were excluded from the diluted net loss per share calculation because their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive:
In connection with the issuance of the 2024 Notes in December 2019, the Company paid $44.9 million to enter into capped call option agreements to reduce the potential dilution to holders of the Company’s common stock upon conversion of the 2024 Notes. In connection with the issuance of the 2022 Notes in November 2017, the Company paid $12.9 million to enter into capped call option agreements to reduce the potential dilution to holders of the Company’s common stock upon conversion of the 2022 Notes.
In December 2019, the Company partially terminated capped call options related to the 2022 Notes and received $5.8 million. The capped call option agreements are excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share attributable to common stockholders as their effect is antidilutive.
Table:
 |  | Year Ended December 31, | 
 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017
Convertible senior notes | 6,733,914 | 3,411,199 | 3,411,199
Stock-based compensation grants | 2,038,174 | 2,562,274 | 3,268,610
Total | 8,772,088 | 5,973,473 | 6,679,809


Question: What was the amount paid by the company to enter into capped call option agreements to reduce the potential dilution?
Answer: $44.9 million