# Can someone please help me with these equations?Double-declining-balance method.2008: \$15,660 x 2/3 x 1/2 = \$5,220.2009: (\$15,660 - 5,220) x 2/3 = \$6,960.2010: (\$15,660 - a number) x 2/3 = a...

Double-declining-balance method.

2008: \$15,660 x 2/3 x 1/2 = \$5,220.
2009: (\$15,660 - 5,220) x 2/3 = \$6,960.
2010: (\$15,660 - a number) x 2/3 = a number.
2011: (\$15,660 - a number) - \$600 = a number.

hala718 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

2008: \$15,660 x 2/3 x 1/2 = \$5,220.
2009: (\$15,660 - 5,220) x 2/3 = \$6,960.
2010: (\$15,660 - a number) x 2/3 = a number.
2011: (\$15,660 - a number) - \$600 = a number.

Looking at your problem, we notice a pattern, such that the middle unknown number equals the result of the previous statment.

For 2009 :  (15,660 - 5220) x 2/3 = 6960

The number 5220 is taken from the results of 2008.

Then we will apply this pattern for the following years:

for 2010 : (15,660 - 6,960) * 2/3 = 5,800

for 2011: ( 15,660 - 5,800) - 600 =  9,260

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

I see a similar question appearing on enotes the third time. And on all three occasions there is lack of clarity on whit is being represented by the given equation and what is the nature of confusion that the question poster wants to be cleared.

I think it will be helpful if the question poster gives some additional details of the purpose or use of these equations.

In the meantime, based on the fact that the equations are tagged with numbers that look like calendar years, mention of the term "double declining balance", and use of the tag "accounting II", it appears to me that these equations deal with some form of calculation of depreciation. Using this assumption equation appear to represent the following:

First equation represents depreciation on assets valued at \$15,660 for the year 2008. The rate of depreciation is taken as 2/3 of the net capital asset value. It further appears that in this year depreciation is taken for only half a year. This explains the multiplication by 1/2.

The second equation represents the depreciation on the remaining written down value of the assets (\$15660 - 5,220) for the year 2009.

The third equation represents the depreciation on the remaining written down value of the assets for the year 2010. The term "a number" used in this equation then becomes the cumulative depreciation in the year 2008 and 2009. The value of this will be:

5220 + 6960 = 12180

Then the equation becomes:

2010: (\$15,660 - 12180) x 2/3 = 2320

The nature of the fourth equation is not very clear. An equation like this could represent the loss on sale or disposal of the asset for \$ 600 in the beginning of the year 2010. In this case the term "a number" will represent the cumulative depreciation till 2010. The value of this will be:

12180 + 2320 = 14500

Then the equation becomes:

2011: (\$15,660 - 14500) - \$600 = 560

linnie4352 | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 1) Salutatorian

Posted on

2008: \$15,660 x 2/3 x 1/2 = \$5,220.
2009: (\$15,660 - 5220) x 2/3 = \$6,960.
2010: (\$15,660 - 12,180) x 2/3 = \$2,320.
2011: (\$15,660 - 14,500) - 600 = \$560.