If a country is going through financial difficulty, there are several steps they can take including:
- Reducing spending
- Delaying interest payments
- Using cash reserves
If a country sees that its taxes will not be enough to cover its obligations, it can reduce the amount it spends on goods and services so as to reduce its obligations.
Country can also increase the time taken to pay off debts so that they can divert cash to needed areas whilst waiting for things to be better.
Country can use cash reserves that it accumulated in one form or the other to weather the storm of reduced taxes.
In conclusion, the government can deal with tax shortage in several ways.
<em>Find out more at brainly.com/question/14325722. </em>
Answer:
hi im just getting my points
Explanation:
and im good btw
Answer will be ‘Desire’ according to me.
Answer:
C $30,000
Explanation:
. A $30,000 result has a 35 percent chance of occurring, but the entity cumulatively has a 55 percent chance of receiving at least a $30,000 tax benefit. As a result, $30,000 is the appropriate amount to recognize.
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.
