Answer:CPI, GDP Deflator
Explanation:CPI(consumer price index) is a macroeconomic measure used to determine the level of inflation in countries like the United States of America.
GDP Deflator is also a macroeconomic measure that measures the price level of all the new products produced domestically within a country in a specified year or period.
Both GDP DEFLATOR AND CPI ARE VERY USEFUL IN DETERMINING THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ECONOMY AS GDP DEFLATOR MEASURES DEFLATION,CPI MEASURES PRICE INFLATION IN A SPECIFIC OR BASE YEAR UNDER REVIEW.
Both but fixed goes first so a is correct
Answer:
Lloyd needs to increase his witholding tax to $1,560 this year in order to avoid the underpayment penalty .
Explanation:
As a rule, a citizen can maintain a strategic distance from an underpayment of punishment if their retention and evaluated assessment installment measure up to or surpass one of the two safe harbours
90% of current expense risk = 90% × $11,350
= $10,215
100% of past assessment risk = $15,900
Since his(Lloyd) retention is not equal to or exceed $10,215 or $15,900
Llyod should expand retaining or make payment this year in order to stay away from underpayment punishment
= $10,215 - $8,655
= $1,560
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
