Answer:
The correct answer is Fee simple determinable.
Explanation:
In US law, a simple fee is a state on earth, a form of full property ownership. It is the way in which real estate is owned by common law countries, and it is the greatest possible property interest that can be held in real estate. The allodial title is reserved to governments under a civil law structure. The ownership of the simple tariff represents a property interest in real estate, although it is limited by fiscal powers, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and could also be limited by certain liens or conditions in writing, such As an Example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversal interest in the grantor if the condition fails; This is a simple conditional rate.
Answer:
The maximum amount Harvey can contribute to his retirement plan in 2019 is $30,000.
Explanation:
According to Keogh plan the maximum amount Harvey can contribute to his retirement plan in 2019 is 25% over the amount Harvey earned Or 53,000 Whichever is less.
Thus,
Harvey is a self-employed accountant with earned income from the business of $120,000 and its 25% is $30,000.
Show interest, act professional, show that you want the job and show that you got what it takes and more. You're showing them that you want the job and no one is gonna take it from you (just don't be that cocky either) they don't like people who are too cocky or too much of a push over you have to have a good balance that will show that you're perfect for the work environment =.
Hope this helped!
Answer:
Option (c) is correct.
Explanation:
Law of demand states that the price of the commodity and the quantity demanded of that commodity are negatively related to each other. This means that as the price of the commodity falls then as a result the quantity demanded for that commodity increases.
Therefore, the consumer will buy more sticks when the price of sticks falls from $2 to $1.
Answer:
C)
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described it can be said that they would not be subject to this if the common stock were owned by a partnership where Edwards is not a partner. Most likely if the stocks were divided between Fifty-five shareholders who are related neither to each other nor to Edward, in equal lots of 10 shares each.
