Answer: D. None of the above
Explanation:
In the above case in the question, Kimberly has done nothing wrong. What was done was simply followed the principle of demand.
In this case, she saw that she was the first cinema to show the movie and seek to maximize profit. Some there'll be an increase in demand for the movie, thus can being about an increase in price which is what happened in this case.
Therefore, what she did is not illegal, and unfair. Therefore, the best option is D.
I believe it is left to Congress to decide
Answer:
the right to not be tried for the same crime twice in the same court.
Answer:
Instability of politics. Democracy has recently been chastised for failing to have sufficient political stability. Since governments are regularly elected and re-elected, democratic countries' domestic and foreign policies are subject to frequent change.
<u>Answer:</u>
<em>In guidelines known as Circular 230, the IRS says that an expert can't charge an unforeseen expense for administrations rendered regarding any issue before the IRS, with three exceptions.</em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
One place where unexpected charges might be particularly helpful is the <em>place the citizen</em> is attempting to get cash once more from the IRS in a claim. Duty discount suits may loan themselves to unforeseen charges, and the IRS has endorsed <em>unexpected expenses in that unique circumstance</em>.
Truly, truth is stranger than fiction, this is a zone controlled by the IRS. So to begin, regardless of whether your expense guide can offer you benefits on a possibility relies upon what <em>unforeseen charges are permitted by the IRS.</em>
