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.
Answer:
in our unique judicial system, courts are protected from the influence of other branches of government, as well as shifting popular opinion. ... This allows the judiciary to make decisions based on what is right under the law, without political or personal consequences.
Explanation:
Answer: He has provided an advanced order of moving.
Explanation:
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
