PAC funds are the employees of the corporation who wish to support candidate to voluntary contribute to the election. These funds were limited by federal regulations previously provide by Austin v. Michigan Chamber Of Commerce case of 1990, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission case of 2003. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections. Similarly McConnell v. Federal Election Commission decision justify the constitutionality of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In which regulate spending corporations and unions.
The Articles of Confederation wasn’t working for the fifty-five individuals at the Constitutional Convention on May of 1787 in Philadelphia. Under the articles, there was no chief executive, court system, or a way to force the states to pay taxes. For Madison and his delegates, they were challenged by having to write a Constitution that was strong enough to hold the people and states together without letting one person or group, branch, or level of government gain to much control. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? The constitution guarded against tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs. small states.
After thinking about the information you submitted to me about your taxes, there were several issues which I observed. Firstly, I would like to talk about John Smith's issues: 1(a) I think the $300,000 received by John Smith as fees from jury award is taxable for federal tax income purposes. Because as the IRC Sec 104(a)(2) law: any winnings in a personal injury lawsuit that cover the treatment of physical injuries are not taxable except for attorney fees which are taxable. Taxability also depends upon the place of residence of the taxpayer. (1) In Codman Vs. Commissioner, held that attorney fees paid to the attorney not to be included in the gross income of the claimant in favour of whom the personal injury lawsuit is settled.
* Question 1 2 out of 2 points | | | Which of the following statements is CORRECT? | | | | | | | Correct Answer: | Sole proprietorships and partnerships generally have a tax advantage over many corporations, especially large ones. | | | | | * Question 2 0 out of 2 points | | | Which of the following statements is CORRECT? | | | | | | | Correct Answer: | One of the disadvantages of a sole proprietorship is that the proprietor is exposed to unlimited liability. | | | | | * Question 3 0 out of 2 points | | | You recently sold 100 shares of your new company, XYZ Corporation, to your brother at a family reunion.
14-18, Code Sec.1032 states that a corporation does not recognize a gain or loss on the receipt of money or other property in exchange for its stock. Also, it does not recognize income when it receives money or other property as a contribution to capital (i.e., the corporation does not issue stock, debt, money, or property in return for the contributed property). It also states any amounts received from voluntary pro rata payments from shareholders are not income to the corporation even though no stock is
United State – 487 U.S. 99 (1988)” (Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99) the Fifth Amendment would not apply. Braswell incorporated both companies and the “courts have recognized that corporations exist as a separate legal person” (Melvin, 2011, pg. 554). The details of corporate records are not privilege under the Fifth Amendment and “a corporation does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination” (Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99). Conclusion In this case the courts make it clear that there is absolutely no instance where documents related to a corporation or any person connected to the corporation would be able to rely upon the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting the amount of money corporations and unions spend on independent political expenditures. The majority stated that an association of individuals (i.e. corporations) retains the same First Amendment rights as individuals themselves do. Additionally, the majority argued that one’s identity is irrelevant in regards to freedom of speech; in other words, a corporation with billions of dollars in revenue has the same, unrestricted freedom of speech protections as common individuals do. Essentially, the majority stated that it is not up to the courts or legislature to impose campaign spending
While the court did not rule on the issue of whether the company violated Wilson's ADA rights by failing to provide accommodations, this case shows what employers should not do when trying to determine if an employee is disabled. In January, the 4th Circuit upheld the decision, adding to a previous standard set by the Supreme Court regarding
Neither Moore nor MBM appeared at the sale or took steps there after to redeem the property. On August 16, 1979, MBM came to know about the tax sale. By then the redemption period had run and Moore still owed appellant $8,237.19. • In November 1979, Adams filed a suit in state court seeking to quiet title to the property, but in opposition to Adam’s motion MBM contended that it had not received enough adequate notice of the pending tax sale and the opportunity to redeem the
As Bernadette’s AGI ($103,000) is less than $160,000, Bernadette qualifies for a $2,500 American Opportunity credit. The lifetime learning credit is available per taxpayer on the first $10,000 of qualifying tuition expenses. Accordingly, her tuition ($2,000) would qualify for the credit during 2011. Therefore, Bernadette’s maximum lifetime learning credit would be $400 (20% × $2,000) for 2011. However, the $400 maximum credit would have to be reduced by $20 since her $103,000 AGI exceeds the threshold level of $102,000 for married