1. Personally
2. Looks (sometimes)lol
That's all
Have a nice day
Btw what did you mean by u too!! ??
Because they could cause harm to others
Answer:
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Supreme Court decision presiding that the Fourth Amendment's defense in contradiction of unreasonable explorations and appropriations must be prolonged to the states in addition to the federal government. This upturned Polka v Connecticut, asserting that defense from double jeopardy does relate in state courts.
Explanation: the court looked at the fourteenth amendment to make their decision and looks like they could`t decide
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:
i,ll do my best to help
are you a conexus student as well
Explanation:
