| | Instructor Explanation: | RULE: In order to file a joint return, the parties must be MARRIED at the end of the year. Exception: If the parties are married but are LEGALLY SEPARATED under the laws of the state in which they reside, they cannot file a joint return (they will file either under the single or head of household filing status). Choice "a" is incorrect. Per the above rule, taxpayers who are married but lived under a legal separation agreement at the end of the year may not file a joint return. They will generally file either under the single or head of household filing status.
Without such expressly written agreement to the contrary; “any partner has the authority to bind the partnership with respect to third parties” (Bagley & Savage 2010). Since Boyd signed a contract with sassy sauces on behalf of Justified BBQ, all the partners of Justified BBQ can be sued for non-payment. Both partners are equally responsible just like they would be if they were a married couple, “In some respects, a partnership is like a marriage or a family. Its members share not only the benefits of the relationship but the burdens as well”. (Bagley & Savage 2010) 1 (c) If Justified BBQ were a corporation instead of a partnership, who would be responsible for the payment for the BBQ sauce if the corporation went bankrupt?
Case Study 10: An Anti-Nepotism Policy Week 2 HR586 1/11/2012 Keller Graduate School Professor: Nepotism is when favoritism is granted to relatives regardless of merit. An example of this is hiring or promoting relatives merely because they are family members, with no regard to their qualifications or consideration of other job candidates or employees. Anti-nepotism in the United States date back to the early 1970s, there have been various legal challenges the policies and regulations. Although many plaintiffs are professionals who have been denied employment, transferred or even dismissed because either their husbands or wives were already employed and worked for the same organization or due to their husbands or wives being promoted to supervisory positions over them, because of this plaintiffs certain that they have a legal right to work with their spouses, and it suggests that anti-nepotism rules are a means to discriminate against them and because of this such rules violate their constitutional right to marry. Issues In the following case study; Keith Walton, was an employee of the Company, in which he was hired as a Helper at the Manatee Power Plant and from there he worked his way up to a Journeyman Mechanic.
If a situation of bisexuality were to arise (in the case of polygyny) on behalf of the man’s multiple wives, then and only then, may he allow for his wives to partake in sexual relations with each other. “However, this is a closed system”, what this means is that no one involved in the marriage (in the case of polygyny) may partake in any sexual activities with anyone outside of the marriage, this is taken as a precautionary measure to attempt and not only keep it sacred but also to attempt and keep an STD free environment for the marriage. New members can be adopted into the marriage, but only if everyone from the marriage agrees on that persons credentials and potential and that person must also take a series of examinations to make sure that they are STD free. All in all, some people may not see it as correct but it still takes place “In the global context, acceptance of polygamy is common. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry” and so we must respect it, whether it be because of lack in ratio with men to women or vice versa, it still takes place and therefore, we must attempt to understand
If this case had happened in the District of Columbia, and the couple had been living together for a period of time and had presented themselves as married (Solot & Miller, 2012), then they could be considered married. If that were the case, then the conditions of spousal privilege would apply and the prosecutor could not compel the common law wife to testify against her common law husband. Prosecutorial discretion gives the prosecutor a wide range of latitude in deciding what charges should be brought and against whom those charges should be brought against. In this case, the prosecutor has several
Changes in Marriage Marriage is traditionally dominated by the men while the society expects the women to submit in all forms. In the late 1800s, women were not expected to show their displeasure in any way in their marriages. People, indeed, considered marriage as the “happy-ever-after.” Being an independent widow, Kate Chopin decided to voice on behalf of the women of those times by writing stories concerning how women felt confined and suppressed both spiritually and sexually in their marriage. The general society during that period did not give room for women to be open-minded. Major socio-demographic change, however, have taken place over the last two centuries and has significantly brought changes to the institution of marriage.
Marriage solely being between a man and a women is something we have had for centuries, however, due to divorces and newer ways to have a family, our prestigious and “honorable estate” (Bennett 34) of marriage is weakened. By lumping gay marriage with traditional marriage, Bennett believes that the definition of marriage would be further weakened. If we legally allow this union to be a part of marriage, then how could we stop a less legitimate union, like incest or bigamy? Excluding marriage between a man and a woman is not discriminatory towards homosexuals, but it is protective towards our institution of
Couples must register for marriage licenses at City Hall, and many individuals meet with lawyers and financial planners to hammer out the technical aspects of the union. While most states offer civil unions to same-sex couples, this practice does not provide the same legal protections and affords couples at least a thousand fewer privileges. If the government is going to be involved in marriages (tax-breaks anyone? ), it must be held to the same standard of equality that every other aspect of government is put under and be readily available to everyone. After all, don’t we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Default decision-maker lists, although different from state to state, tend to identify and rank relatives similarly. The lists can be grouped into three categories with respect to same-sex partners: 1) same-sex partners are explicitly listed along with spouses as the first choice of surrogate decision maker, 2) "special friend" is listed as a final category, but is only chosen after all other categories of biological and legally recognized family have been exhausted, and 3) no provision at all is made for same-sex partners. This matters because in many states, the hospital is shielded from liability only if they choose a surrogate decision maker from the state-designated
(8 Otto). Reynolds believed that he could marry another woman while married to his first wife. He was indicted of this offense because the Morill-Anti Bigamy Act was already passed. He believed the free exercise clause prohibited the Supreme Court from charging him. The Supreme Court determined that they neither can stop religious beliefs or practices as long as the practices do not break any laws.