Answer:
review your progress, reevaluate, and revise your plan
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario the step that you have completely neglected is to review your progress, reevaluate, and revise your plan. That is because in this scenario many events have occurred, and it seems that your financial plan after retirement has not been adjusted with each and every one of these life events. Therefore it is outdated and most likely not providing the benefits it once did.
Answer:
If a CPA does an audit irresponsibly, the CPA will be held liable to third parties who were recognized and not foreseeable to the CPA for gross negligence.
It needs to be specified if the third party had been “anticipatable,” liability; it may be recognized for ordinary negligence within a Rosenblum v. Adler decision.
Explanation:
Answer:
The correct answer would be option B, Judge's own personal feelings about the internet.
Explanation:
When a case comes to a court, it is the responsibility of a judge to see every aspect of the case and analyze it on the basis of given evidence or set rules or standards, or in the light of decisions made on the same case by other courts. But in this question, it is said that the case which was brought to the court was the first in its kind, it means no such type of case has been ever submitted in any court before. The freedom of speech on internet is a sensitive issue. So all aspects should be kept in mind while proceeding the case, and it would not be considered proper for the judge to bring his person feelings about the internet into the case. His personal feelings should be set aside and the case should be solved on the basis of evidences and solid views.
