Answer:
Do you still need this answer?
Explanation:
Answer:
It will help develop the lives of citizens
Answer:
So you can have a just government and there's no confusion.
Explanation:
I hope someone can help you with a more detailed response!
Answer:
a. How will the $20,000 payments be treated by Fred and Tammy if covered by prior law? b. How will the payments be treated if the divorce is covered by new law? c. What is Tammy's basis in the residence? d. What role would a tax adviser play in a divorce?
Explanation:
a. For Fred, the 20,000 must be included in income. There is no deduction for paying alimony. For Tammy, the amount is not included in income.
b. If the divorce was complete prior to December 31, 2018, Fred can deduct the $20,000 payments as alimony.
If the divorce was complete prior to December 31, 2018, Tammy must include the $20,000 payments in gross income.
c. It's $100.000,00
d. Tax advisors are responsible for determining the value of property given in lieu of cash for an alimony payment.
Judicial restraint is the political theory that says courts shouldn't, unless absolutely required, issue rulings that broaden or alter the character of existing laws.
<h3>Justiciable constraint is exercised by whom?</h3>
A jurist (judge or justice) who upholds a philosophy of restraint can be described as one who considers democracy to have intrinsic, rather than just instrumental, value, that the judiciary is indeed the least powerful of the three branches of government, and who values stability and predictability in the lawmaking process.
<h3>Why do advocates of judicial restraint assert that judges are impervious to public sentiment?</h3>
They are freed from the strain of the outer world of public opinion since they do not have to worry about being reelected. In the end, the majority may not always be correct. The fact that the Founders established appointed judges and elected legislators is not by coincidence.
Learn more about Judicial restraint: brainly.com/question/29545866
#SPJ4
