September 22 2013 TAX FILE MEMORANDUM To: Tax Memorandum – Junk File Subject: TaxQuestions@homesale Summary of Facts: Mr. Junkiewicz and his wife bought their current home in year 2000 with $300,000 cash. There was no mortgage. Improvements made to the house was a $25,000 sun room paid in cash. They are in the 30% percent tax bracket. In 2013 the couple sold their house for $500,000 and bought a new house for $700,000 in cash.
Should or does a landlord have an obligation to a tenant’s next of kin to inform them in the event of the tenant’s death and in a timely manner? Is the landlord liable for damages? In the case of Del Core v. Mohican Historic Housing these questions were asked of the Judicial District Court at New London in Connecticut. In this report, the facts, the courts involved and the law at issue, and the final ruling by the appellate court will be discussed. Del Core’s brother, Anthony Caruso, had been a tenant with Mohican for approximately three years until his death in July 2001.
On March 3, 1995 Dr. Vernon Robertshaw leased a Fluoroscan imaging machine from Fluoroscan Imaging Systems Inc. of Northbrook, Illinois. Dr. Vernon Robertshaw paid a deposit of $1,579.52 U.S and was to pay monthly rental of $686.75 U.S for 60 months. The said machine was unique and it was designed to produce continuous images. Unfortunately machine did not work and plaintiff returned it to defendant for repair three times during the first year. Defendant was unable to correct the defects of that machine and he assigned the lease to Trans Leasing International that company bought out by General Electrical Capital Corporation.
It is expected that the equipment has to be replaced after five years. Assume that the residual value is 0. On January 3 a store location was found and three months' rent was paid in advance, totalling € 3,300. Business operations began on January 3. Additional operating facts for January are as follows: New and second hand books were bought and paid, totaling € 3,200. Cash sales of € 4,000.
Mr. Richards also testified that Mr. Kurtz “didn’t feel that the Association could, in fact, come up with that type of savings, but the negotiations still had to move forward.” Id. Mr. Richards, of course, was not competent to testify as to what Mr. Kurtz felt. In any event, as noted above, the record shows that the Association subsequently submitted a proposal projecting a savings to the District if its transportation services remained in-house. Thus, whatever Mr. Kurtz may have felt, it
45-11, the debt of Jettison Manufacturing became callable at the beginning of 2d year “because the debtor's violation of a provision of the debt agreement at the balance sheet date”. Nevertheless, as Jettison Manufacturing “has cured the violation after the balance sheet date and the obligation is not callable at the time the financial statements are issued or are available to be issued” , the National “has waived or subsequently lost the right to demand repayment for more than one year from the balance sheet date”. Thus par.45-11a gives the company the right to reclassify the current liability into a long-term debt before preparing year 2s financial
REVIEW Problem: (Chapter 2) Bob Sample opened the Campus Laundromat on September 1, 2012. During the first month of operations, the following transactions occurred. Sept. 1 Bob invested $20,000 cash in the business. 2 The company paid $1,000 cash for store rent for September. 3 Purchased washers and dryers for $25,000, paying $10,000 in cash and signing a $15,000, 6-month, 12% note payable.
Statement of Facts Bob (“plaintiff”), who lives in Los Angeles, CA, generously loaned three different individuals three different amounts of money. Twenty-four months ago plaintiff loaned Dan (“defendant 1”) $55,000.00. Dan signed a promissory note stating he would repay the loan in 18 months. Dan has not paid anything, defaulting on his loan. Fourteen months ago, Bob loaned Cathy (“defendant 2”) $7,000.00.