hellotayssir/FinQA_TAT-QA_financial_finetuning_dataset huggingface dataset:
Income Taxes
nm - not meaningful
For fiscal 2018, the effective tax rate was different than the statutory rate due primarily to the impact of the Tax Act reform. The Company recorded a benefit of approximately $3.3 million resulting from the effect of a reduction in the deferred rate and the ability to offset indefinite lived deferred tax liabilities with certain deferred tax assets, recognition of net operating losses as deferred tax assets, which were offset by increases in the valuation allowance, certain foreign and state tax effects including a benefit of $0.4 million related to a settlement with the California Franchise Tax Board and other U.S. permanent book to tax differences. At March 31, 2018, we had $198.7 million of a federal net operating loss carryforward that expires, if unused, in fiscal years 2031 to 2038.
For fiscal 2017, the effective tax rate was different than the statutory rate due primarily to the recognition of net operating losses as deferred tax assets, which were offset by increases in the valuation allowance, state taxes and other U.S. permanent book to tax differences.
Although the timing and outcome of tax settlements are uncertain, it is reasonably possible that during the next 12 months a reduction in unrecognized tax benefits may occur in the range of zero to $0.1 million of tax and zero to $0.2 million of interest based on the outcome of tax examinations and as a result of the expiration of various statutes of limitations. We are routinely audited; due to the ongoing nature of current examinations in multiple jurisdictions, other changes could occur in the amount of gross unrecognized tax benefits during the next 12 months which cannot be estimated at this time.
Because of our losses in prior periods, we have recorded a valuation allowance offsetting substantially all of our deferred tax assets. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets generated prior to Tax Act reform depends on the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences are deductible. Because of our losses in prior periods, management believes that it is more-likely-than-not that we will not realize the benefits of these deductible differences.
Table:
 | Year ended March 31, |  | (Unfavorable) favorable | 
(Dollars in thousands) | 2018 | 2017 | $ | %
Income tax (benefit) expense | $ (3,251) | $ 236 | $ 3,487 | nm
Effective tax rate | (28.0)% | (2.1)% |  | 


Question: What was the increase / (decrease) in the effective tax rate from 2017 to 2018?
Answer: -25.9
Calculation: -28.0 - (-2.1)
NOTE 11—FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS
Long-term debt consists of the following (in thousands):
Maturities of long-term debt for each of the five years in the period ending September 30, 2024, are as follows: 2020 — $10.7 million; 2021 — $35.7 million; 2022 — $35.7 million; 2023 — $35.7 million; 2024 — $35.7 million.
In March 2013, we entered into a note purchase and private shelf agreement pursuant to which we issued $100.0 million of senior unsecured notes, bearing interest at a rate of 3.35% and maturing on March 12, 2025. Pursuant to the agreement, on July 17, 2015, we issued an additional $25.0 million of senior unsecured notes, bearing interest at a rate of 3.70% and maturing on March 12, 2025. Interest payments on the notes issued in 2013 and 2015 are due semi-annually and principal payments are due from 2021 through 2025. On February 2, 2016 we revised the note purchase agreement and we issued an additional $75.0 million of senior unsecured notes bearing interest at 3.93% and maturing on March 12, 2026. Interest payments on these notes are due semi-annually and principal payments are due from 2020 through 2026.
The agreement pertaining to the aforementioned notes also contained a provision that the coupon rate would increase by a further 0.50% should the company’s leverage ratio exceed a certain level.
Table:
September 30, | 2019 | 2018
Series A senior unsecured notes payable to a group of insurance companies, interest fixed at 3.35% | $  50,000 | $  50,000
Series B senior unsecured notes payable to a group of insurance companies, interest fixed at 3.35% | 50,000 | 50,000
Series C senior unsecured notes payable to a group of insurance companies, interest fixed at 3.70% | 25,000 | 25,000
Series D senior unsecured notes payable to a group of insurance companies, interest fixed at 3.93% | 75,000 | 75,000
 | 200,000 | 200,000
Less unamortized debt issuance costs | (175) | (207)
Less current portion | (10,714) | —
 | $189,111 | $199,793


Question: What are the different interest rates for the different senior unsecured notes payable to a group of insurance companies?
Answer: 3.35%, 3.70%, 3.93%
Summarized financial information concerning our segments is shown in the tables below (in millions):
(1) Revenues for Corporate and Other represent deferred revenue purchase accounting adjustments recorded in accordance with GAAP
(2) Operating expenses for Corporate and Other includes equity-based compensation, including certain related payroll taxes, of $51.7 million, $51.4 million and $19.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.
(4) Depreciation and amortization for Corporate and Other primarily represents net incremental depreciation and amortization adjustments associated with the application of purchase accounting recorded in accordance with GAAP.
(6) Receivables from related parties are included in Corporate and Other.
(7) Transition and integration costs primarily consists of legal and professional fees related to the Distribution and transition-related costs following the Distribution.
Table:
 |  |  | Year ended December 31, 2017 |  | 
 | Software Solutions | Data and Analytics | Corporate and Other |  | Total
Revenues | $904.5 | $151.6 | $(4.5) | (1) | $1,051.6
Expenses: |  |  |  |  | 
Operating expenses | 388.0 | 113.2 | 68.3 | (2) | 569.5
Transition and integration costs | — | — | 13.1 | (7) | 13.1
EBITDA | 516.5 | 38.4 | (85.9) |  | 469.0
Depreciation and amortization | 101.2 | 12.8 | 92.5 | (4) | 206.5
Operating income (loss) | 415.3 | 25.6 | (178.4) |  | 262.5
Interest expense, net |  |  |  |  | (57.5)
Other expense, net |  |  |  |  | (12.6)
Earnings before income taxes |  |  |  |  | 192.4
Income tax benefit |  |  |  |  | (61.8)
Net earnings |  |  |  |  | $254.2
Balance sheet data: |  |  |  |  | 
Total assets | $3,223.5 | $304.7 | $127.7 | (6) | $3,655.9
Goodwill | $2,134.7 | $172.1 | $— |  | $2,306.8


Question: Which expenses had a total that exceeded $100 million?
Answer: Operating expenses
Calculation: (Operating expenses:569.5)
NOTE 7 – LEASING
TORM has leases for the office buildings, some vehicles and other administrative equipment. With the exception of short-term leases and leases of low-value assets, each lease is reflected on the balance sheet as a right-of-use asset with a corresponding lease liability. The right-of-use assets are included in the financial statement line item in which the corresponding underlying assets would be presented if they were owned. Please refer to note 6.
As of 31 December 2019, TORM had recognized the following right-of-use assets:
Table:
USDm | Vessels and capitalized dry-docking | Land and buildings | Other plant and operating equipment
Cost: |  |  | 
Balance as of 1 January | 43.3 | - | -
Adjustment on transition to IFRS 16 | - | 9.9 | 0.3
Additions | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.4
Disposals | -2.7 | - | -0.1
Balance as of 31 December | 42.4 | 10.4 | 0.6
Depreciation: |  |  | 
Balance as of 1 January | 13.4 | - | -
Disposals | -2.7 | - | -
Depreciation for the year | 4.8 | 2.3 | 0.2
Balance as of 31 December | 15.5 | 2.3 | 0.2
Carrying amount as of 31 December | 26.9 | 8.1 | 0.4


Question: How is each lease reflected on the balance sheet?
Answer: as a right-of-use asset with a corresponding lease liability. The right-of-use assets are included in the financial statement line item in which the corresponding underlying assets would be presented if they were owned.
Liquidity
The following table presents selected financial information on liquidity (in thousands):
(1) We define working capital as current assets less current liabilities. Fiscal year 2019 includes the impact of recognizing operating lease right-of-use assets and liabilities as a result of our adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, “Leases,” as of December 29, 2018.
We believe our existing balances of cash and cash equivalents, working capital and the availability under our asset-based loan facility, are sufficient to satisfy our working capital needs, capital expenditures, debt service and other liquidity requirements associated with our current operations over the next 12 months.
Our capital expenditures, excluding cash paid for acquisitions, were approximately $16.1 million for fiscal 2019. We believe our capital expenditures, excluding cash paid for acquisitions, for fiscal 2020 will be approximately $38.0 million to $42.0 million. The increase in projected capital expenditures in fiscal 2020 as compared to fiscal 2019 is the result of planned expansions of several of our distribution facilities. Our planned capital projects will provide both new and expanded facilities and improvements to our technology that we believe will produce increased efficiency and the capacity to continue to support the growth of our customer base.
Table:
 |  | Fiscal Year Ended | 
 | December 27, 2019  | December 28, 2018  | December 29, 2017
Cash and cash equivalents | $140,233 | $42,410 | $41,504
Working capital,(1) excluding cash and cash equivalents | $162,772 | $160,783 | $147,063
Availability under asset-based loan facility | $133,359 | $90,015 | $64,805


Question: What is the average value for the Availability under asset-based loan facility for fiscal years 2019, 2018 and 2017?
Answer: 96059.67
Calculation: (133,359+ 90,015+ 64,805)/3
12 . brokerage receivables and brokerage payables citi has receivables and payables for financial instruments sold to and purchased from brokers , dealers and customers , which arise in the ordinary course of business . citi is exposed to risk of loss from the inability of brokers , dealers or customers to pay for purchases or to deliver the financial instruments sold , in which case citi would have to sell or purchase the financial instruments at prevailing market prices . credit risk is reduced to the extent that an exchange or clearing organization acts as a counterparty to the transaction and replaces the broker , dealer or customer in question . citi seeks to protect itself from the risks associated with customer activities by requiring customers to maintain margin collateral in compliance with regulatory and internal guidelines . margin levels are monitored daily , and customers deposit additional collateral as required . where customers cannot meet collateral requirements , citi may liquidate sufficient underlying financial instruments to bring the customer into compliance with the required margin level . exposure to credit risk is impacted by market volatility , which may impair the ability of clients to satisfy their obligations to citi . credit limits are established and closely monitored for customers and for brokers and dealers engaged in forwards , futures and other transactions deemed to be credit sensitive . brokerage receivables and brokerage payables consisted of the following: .

Table:
in millions of dollars | december 31 , 2016 | december 31 , 2015
receivables from customers | $ 10374 | $ 10435
receivables from brokers dealers and clearing organizations | 18513 | 17248
total brokerage receivables ( 1 ) | $ 28887 | $ 27683
payables to customers | $ 37237 | $ 35653
payables to brokers dealers and clearing organizations | 19915 | 18069
total brokerage payables ( 1 ) | $ 57152 | $ 53722
payables to brokers , dealers , and clearing organizations 19915 18069 total brokerage payables ( 1 ) $ 57152 $ 53722 ( 1 ) includes brokerage receivables and payables recorded by citi broker- dealer entities that are accounted for in accordance with the aicpa accounting guide for brokers and dealers in securities as codified in asc 940-320. .

Question: what was the percent of the change in the 8 total brokerage payable from 2015 to 2016
Answer: 6.4%
Calculation: subtract(57152, 53722), divide(#0, 53722)
Assets in the combined schemes increased by £177.1m to £5,040.7m in the period. RHM scheme assets increased by £149.1m to £4,333.6m while the Premier Foods’ schemes assets increased by £28.0m to £707.1m. The most significant movement by asset class is that of government bonds which increased by £444.0m in the year, predominantly in the RHM scheme.
Liabilities in the combined schemes increased by £121.0m in the year to £4,667.6m. The value of liabilities associated with the RHM scheme were £3,495.8m, an increase of £65.3m while liabilities in the Premier Foods schemes were £55.7m higher at £1,171.8m. The increase in the value of liabilities in both schemes is due to a lower discount rate assumption of 2.45% (31 March 2018: 2.70%) and an increase in the RPI inflation rate assumption; from 3.15% to 3.25%.
The Group’s Pension Trustees have just commenced the triennial actuarial valuation process of the Group’s pension schemes as at 31 March 2019 (RHM scheme) and 5 April 2019 (Premier Foods main scheme). This exercise typically takes a number of months to conclude; the output of which will be provided in due course.
The net present value of future deficit payments, to the end of the respective recovery periods remains at circa £300–320m.
Table:
Combined pensions schemes (£m) | 30 March 2019 | 31 March 2018
Assets |  | 
Equities | 179.5 | 296.5
Government bonds | 1,490.4 | 1,046.4
Corporate bonds | 26.9 | 20.7
Property | 436.5 | 391.0
Absolute return products | 1,141.2 | 1,323.3
Cash | 38.1 | 32.4
Infrastructure funds | 256.1 | 254.6
Swaps | 556.4 | 715.3
Private equity | 446.1 | 344.0
Other | 469.5 | 439.4
Total Assets | 5,040.7 | 4,863.6
Liabilities |  | 
Discount rate | 2.45% | 2.70%
Inflation rate (RPI/CPI) | 3.25%/2.15% | 3.15%/2.05%


Question: What was the net present value of future-deficit payments?
Answer: £300–320m
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services
The following table sets forth the fees for services provided and reasonably expected to be billed by Malone Bailey LLP. The following is a summary of the fees billed to the Company for professional services rendered for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018.
Audit Fees: For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, the aggregate audit fees billed by our independent auditors were for professional services rendered for
audits and quarterly reviews of our consolidated financial statements, and assistance with reviews of registration statements and documents filed with the SEC.
Audit-Related Fees: Audit-related fees are for assurance and other activities not explicitly related to the audit of our financial statements.
Tax Fees: For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, there were no tax fees, respectively.
All Other Fees: For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, there were $0 and $0, respectively.
Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures. The Audit Committee oversees and monitors our financial reporting process and internal control system, reviews and
evaluates the audit performed by our registered independent public accountants and reports to the Board any substantive issues found during the audit. The Audit Committee
is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of our registered independent public accountants. The Audit Committee convenes on a
quarterly basis to approve each quarterly filing, and an annual basis to review the engagement of the Company’s external auditor.
The Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of Audit-Related Fees, Tax Fees, and all other fees as described above is compatible with maintaining
Marcum LLP’s and Malone Bailey LLP’s independence and has determined that such services for fiscal years 2019 and 2018, respectively, were compatible. All such services
were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X under the Exchange Act to the extent that rule was applicable.
Table:
 | Fiscal Year | Fiscal Year
 | 2019 | 2018
Audit fees | $55,000 | $54,550
Audit-related fees | $- | $-
Tax Fees | $- | $-
All other fees | - | $-
Total | 55,000 | $54,550


Question: What does audit-related fees refer to?
Answer: Assurance and other activities not explicitly related to the audit of our financial statements
7. Accrued Expenses
Accrued expenses consist of the following (in thousands):
Table:
 | August 31, 2019 | August 31, 2018
Contract liabilities | $511,329 | $—
Deferred income | — | 691,365
Accrued compensation and employee benefits | 600,907 | 570,400
Obligation associated with securitization programs | 475,251 | —
Other accrued expenses | 1,402,657 | 1,000,979
Accrued expenses | $2,990,144 | $2,262,744


Question: What was the percentage change in accrued expenses between 2018 and 2019?
Answer: 32.15
Calculation: ($2,990,144-$2,262,744)/$2,262,744
Note 4 – Property, Plant and Equipment, net
Property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:
Table:
 |  | December 31,
 | 2019 | 2018
Land | $ 1,565 | $ 1,747
Buildings and improvements | 17,332 | 17,520
Machinery and equipment | 30,670 | 29,692
Vehicles | 778 | 937
Office equipment | 851 | 838
Construction in process | 362 | 546
 | 51,558 | 51,280
Less accumulated depreciation | (29,284 ) | (26,707 )
Total property, plant and equipment, net | $ 22,274 | $ 24,573


Question: What is the change in the value of land between 2018 and 2019?
Answer: -182
Calculation: 1,565-1,747
Other intangible assets at fiscal year ends 2019 and 2018 consisted of the following:
Goodwill, trademarks and tradenames are considered to have indefinite useful lives and therefore no amortization has been taken on these assets. The Company’s retail reporting unit recorded intangible asset (trademarks and tradenames) impairment charges of approximately $2.9 million during fiscal 2019 and goodwill impairment charges of approximately $1.9 million during fiscal 2018 when it was determined that the carrying values of these assets exceeded their fair values. These impairment charges arose from a range of considerations including, but not limited to, heightened competition in the industry, retail sector market conditions, and earning shortfalls which impacted the Company’s projections of future cash flows to be generated. These impairment charges were recorded in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations as a component of operating income.
Goodwill recorded on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet represents amounts allocated to its wholesale reporting unit which totaled $4.4 million at both September 2019 and September 2018. The Company determined that the estimated fair value of its wholesale reporting unit exceeded its carrying value at both September 2019 and September 2018.
Table:
 | September 2019 | September 2018
Trademarks and tradenames (Retail Segment) | $500,000 | $3,373,269
ustomer relationships (Wholesale Segment) (less accumulated amortization of approximately $2.1 million at both September 2019 and September 2018) | — | 41,667
 | $  500,000 | $3,414,936


Question: What are the respective trademarks and tradenames at the end of fiscal year 2018 and 2019?
Answer: $3,373,269, $500,000
Net finance cost was £47.2m for the year; a decrease of £1.2m on 2017/18. Net regular interest in the year was £40.5m, a decrease of £3.9m compared to the prior year. Consistent with recent years, the largest component of finance costs in the year was interest due to holders of the Group’s senior secured notes, which was £31.7m.
The interest on the senior secured notes was £0.5m lower compared to the prior year following the re-financing of the June 2021 £325m fixed rate notes at a coupon of 6.5% to the October 2023 £300m fixed rate notes to the slightly lower coupon of 6.25%. Bank debt interest of £5.1m was £2.1m lower in the year due to lower levels of average debt and a lower margin on the revolving credit facility following the refinancing completed in May 2018. Amortisation of debt issuance costs was £3.7m, £1.3m lower than the prior year due to lower transaction costs associated with the issue of the £300m 6.25% Fixed rate notes compared with the retired £325m 6.5% Fixed rate notes.
Write-off of financing costs and early redemption fees of £11.3m include a £5.7m fee related to the write-off of transaction costs associated with the senior secured fixed rate notes due March 2021, which were repaid during the year, and a £5.6m redemption fee associated with the early call of the March 2021 bond.
In the prior year, a £0.4m discount unwind credit relating to long-term property provisions held by the Group due to an increase in gilt yields was reflected in reported Net finance cost. In 2018/19, a discount unwind charge of £3.0m was included in the Net finance cost of £47.2m. Other interest income of £7.6m in the year relates to monies received from the Group’s associate Hovis Holdings Limited ('Hovis') and reflects the reversal of a previous impairment.
Table:
£m | 2018/19 | 2017/18 | Change
Senior secured notes interest | 31.7 | 32.2 | 0.5
Bank debt interest | 5.1 | 7.2 | 2.1
 | 36.8 | 39.4 | 2.6
Amortisation of debt issuance costs | 3.7 | 5.0 | 1.3
Net regular interest5 | 40.5 | 44.4 | 3.9
Fair value movements on interest rate financial instruments | – | (0.4) | (0.4)
Write-off of financing costs and early redemption fees | 11.3 | 4.0 | (7.3)
Discount unwind | 3.0 | (0.4) | (3.4)
Other finance income | (7.6) | – | 7.6
Other interest cost | – | 0.8 | 0.8
Net finance cost | 47.2 | 48.4 | 1.2


Question: What was the Net finance cost in 2018/19?
Answer: £47.2m
Commitments and Contractual Obligations
As of June 30, 2019, we have entered into the following contractual obligations with minimum payments for the indicated fiscal periods as follows:
1) Includes interest up to maturity and principal payments. Please see note 10 "Long-Term Debt" for more details.
(2) Net of $30.7 million of sublease income to be received from properties which we have subleased to third parties.
Table:
 |  |  | Payments due between |  | 
 | Total | July 1, 2019— June 30, 2020 | July 1, 2020— June 30, 2022 | July 1, 2022— June 30, 2024 | July 1, 2024 and beyond
Long-term debt obligations (1) | $3,408,565 | $147,059 | $292,156 | $1,045,567 | $1,923,783
Operating lease obligations (2) | 318,851 | 72,853 | 106,394 | 59,441 | 80,163
Purchase obligations | 11,280 | 8,364 | 2,747 | 169 | —
 | $3,738,696 | $228,276 | $401,297 | $1,105,177 | $2,003,946


Question: What is the Total obligations of July 1, 2024 and beyond expressed as a percentage of Total obligations?
Answer: 53.6
Calculation: 2,003,946/3,738,696