The partnership agreement of k. mitch and a. alam reflects differences in service and capital contributions as follows: (1) annual salary allowances of $20,000 to mitch and $40,000 to alam (2) annual interest allowances of 10% of a partner's beginning-year capital balance, and (3) equal share of any remaining balance of income or loss. both partner's beginning-year capital balance was $70,000. net income was $100,000. income allocated to alam is $

Catherine de bourgh has one child, anne, who is 18 years old at the end of the year. anne lived at home for seven months during the year before leaving home to attend state university for the rest of the year. during the year, anne earned $6,000 while working part time. catherine provided 80 percent of anne's support and anne provided the rest. which of the following statements regarding whether anne is catherine's qualifying child for the current year is correct? a.anne is a qualifying child of catherine.b.anne is not a qualifying child of catherine because she fails the gross income test.c.anne is not a qualifying child of catherine because she fails the residence test.d.anne is not a qualifying child of catherine because she fails the support test.

%of the world's population controls approximately % of the world's finances (the sum of gross domestic products)" quizlket

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.