When a taxpayer files for EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) based on earned income from Schedule C, their tax professional must: d) Document the questions and the taxpayer's answers to questions they asked pertaining to the income that is advantageous for EITC.
In this situation, the tax professional should ask relevant questions to ensure that the taxpayer's Schedule C income and expenses are accurate and meet the EITC eligibility requirements. The professional should document the questions they asked and the taxpayer's responses to maintain a record for potential audits or future reference. This approach is important to ensure that the taxpayer receives the EITC benefits they are entitled to while also complying with tax laws and regulations.
To know more about taxpayers visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29664276
#SPJ11
Why is white-collar crime punished disproportionally compared with blue-collar crime? a. White-collar crime is perceived as victimless, that is, not harming its victims in the personal way a blue-collar crime harms its victims b. White-collar criminals are typically judged by other white-collar criminals c. White-collar criminals can easily pay their bails and penalties with the very money they steal d. Only sociologists see white-collar crime as deviant
White-collar crime is punished disproportionately compared with blue-collar crime for a variety of reasons. One reason is that white-collar crime is often perceived as victimless, meaning that it does not harm its victims in the same personal way that a blue-collar crime might.
This perception can lead to the belief that white-collar criminals should be punished more severely to compensate for the perceived lack of harm done to their victims. Another reason is that white-collar criminals are typically judged by other white-collar criminals, who may be more lenient towards their peers. Additionally, white-collar criminals can often easily pay their bails and penalties with the very money they steal, which can make it easier for them to escape punishment or receive lighter sentences. Finally, it is not true that only sociologists see white-collar crime as deviant. Many individuals and institutions recognize the seriousness of white-collar crime and the need to punish it appropriately. Overall, the punishment of white-collar crime remains a complex issue that requires careful consideration of many different factors.
Learn more about White-collar crime here
https://brainly.com/question/31377561
#SPJ11
which 1960s u.s. supreme court dramatically changed the day-to-day practice of american policing
The 1960s U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically changed the day-to-day practice of American policing was Miranda v. Arizona.
The Miranda ruling, issued in 1966, established the requirement that police officers must inform individuals of their constitutional rights before questioning them in custody. This requirement, commonly known as the Miranda warning or Miranda rights, includes the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The Miranda decision had a significant impact on American policing, as it fundamentally altered the way that police officers conduct interrogations and investigations. The ruling was aimed at protecting individuals from self-incrimination and ensuring that they are aware of their rights during police encounters. While the Miranda decision was controversial at the time, it has since become an integral part of the American legal system and a cornerstone of criminal justice reform.
To know more about Miranda v. Arizona
brainly.com/question/30387266
#SPJ11
the court decision of california v. ciraola (1986) established which legal standard?
The court decision of California v. Ciraolo (1986) established the legal standard of "open view doctrine," which permits law enforcement officials to conduct warrantless searches if the object of the search is readily visible from a public vantage point.
The court decision of California v. Ciraolo (1986) established the legal standard for aerial surveillance by law enforcement. In this case, the defendant, Mr. Ciraolo, was growing marijuana in his backyard, which was surrounded by a six-foot fence. The police received an anonymous tip about the marijuana and conducted a flyover of Mr. Ciraolo's property using an airplane at an altitude of 1,000 feet. From this vantage point, they were able to see the marijuana plants growing in Mr. Ciraolo's backyard.
Mr. Ciraolo was charged with cultivating marijuana, but his defense argued that the police had conducted an illegal search by using aerial surveillance without a warrant. The case ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court, which held that the use of aerial surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore did not require a warrant.
The Court established that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from observations made by police from public airspace. In other words, if an individual is doing something that can be seen by anyone from a public vantage point (such as a street or public airspace), then they cannot reasonably expect that their activity is private.
The legal standard established by California v. Ciraolo is known as the "open view doctrine" or "plain view doctrine," which holds that law enforcement can use aerial surveillance to observe activities that are open to the public from a lawful vantage point without violating the Fourth Amendment. This standard has been applied in subsequent cases involving aerial surveillance and has been expanded to include other forms of surveillance technology, such as drones.
To know more about open view doctrine:
https://brainly.com/question/31558574
£SPJ11
law enforcement supervisors can be held liable for the actions of the officers under their command.True/False
The statement is true. Law enforcement supervisors have a duty to ensure that their subordinates are following proper procedures and behaving in accordance with the law.
If an officer under their command acts inappropriately or unlawfully, the supervisor can be held responsible for failing to properly train, supervise, or discipline the officer. This is known as the doctrine of supervisory liability, which holds supervisors accountable for the actions of their subordinates. In some cases, supervisors can also be held liable for their own actions or inactions that contribute to the violation of an individual's rights. It is important for law enforcement supervisors to take their responsibilities seriously and ensure that their officers are upholding the law and acting in a manner that is consistent with departmental policies and regulations.
To learn more about law enforcement, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29422434
#SPJ11
witnesses viewing just one suspect at a time, as opposed to viewing a simultaneous lineup, are
Witnesses viewing just one suspect at a time, as opposed to viewing a simultaneous lineup, are participating in a sequential lineup.
In a sequential lineup, the witness is shown one suspect at a time and must decide whether that person is the perpetrator before moving on to the next. This is in contrast to a simultaneous lineup, where the witness views all the suspects at once and must choose the one they believe is the perpetrator. Research has shown that sequential lineups can lead to higher rates of accurate identifications and lower rates of false identifications than simultaneous lineups. This is because sequential lineups encourage witnesses to rely on their memory and recognition abilities, rather than making a relative judgment based on the lineup members.
Read more about the Witnesses
https://brainly.com/question/23746664
#SPJ11
Rational-choice theory, unlike traditional theories, is not concerned with strategies of
a. law enforcement
b. crime planning
c. policy making
d. overall crime prevention
Rational-choice theory, unlike traditional theories, is not concerned with strategies of overall crime prevention. The answer is d.
Rational-choice theory is a perspective in criminology that suggests that individuals engage in criminal behavior as a result of a rational decision-making process in which they weigh the costs and benefits of the behavior.
Unlike traditional criminological theories that focus on social and psychological factors that lead to criminal behavior, rational-choice theory is primarily concerned with understanding the decision-making process of offenders.
As such, it is not concerned with strategies of overall crime prevention, which aim to reduce crime rates in a broad sense. Instead, rational-choice theory may be more concerned with issues such as crime planning, in which offenders weigh the risks and rewards of a potential criminal act before carrying it out.
Law enforcement strategies may also be relevant to rational-choice theory, as they may impact the perceived costs and benefits of criminal behavior. Policy-making may be relevant as well, as policies that increase the costs of criminal behavior (such as harsher sentencing) may be seen as a deterrent by potential offenders. Hence, d. is the answer.
To know more about Rational-choice theory, refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/31719485#
#SPJ11
When damages are reduced in proportion to the degree of negligence, this is an example of: a) Contributory negligence b) Comparative negligence c) Assumption of risk d) None of the above
The correct answer is b) Comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is a legal principle that allows for the reduction of damages awarded to a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit.
In proportion to their own degree of fault or negligence in causing the injury. This means that if the plaintiff is found to be partially responsible for their own injury, the damages they can receive will be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but is found to be 30% responsible for their injury, their award will be reduced by 30% to $70,000.
Contributory negligence, on the other hand, is a legal principle that bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to have contributed to their own injury in any way. Assumption of risk is a defense that can be raised by a defendant to show that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks associated with a certain activity or situation, and therefore cannot hold the defendant liable for any resulting injuries.
Learn more about risks here:
https://brainly.com/question/31781139
#SPJ11
Which of the following is a condition of probation that can be reviewed by appellate courts? a. Restricting a child's movement b. Voluntary treatment programs c. School attendance d. Drug court attendance
None of the above.is a condition of probation that can be reviewed by appellate courts
Appellate courts generally review legal errors or issues of law, not conditions of probation that are within the discretion of the trial court. Conditions of probation are often imposed by the trial court as part of a sentence, and may include requirements such as drug testing, community service, or electronic monitoring. While an appellate court may review whether the conditions of probation are lawful, such as whether they exceed the statutory authority of the trial court or violate the defendant's constitutional rights, they typically will not review whether the conditions are appropriate or effective
Learn more about Appellate courts here:
https://brainly.com/question/13944421
#SPJ11
The domestic violence study conducted in 1984 by Sherman and Berk had an ethical concern in that: a. It involved the use of animals b. It was conducted without consent c. It caused physical harm to participants d. It perpetuated stereotypes about women
The domestic violence study conducted by Sherman and Berk in 1984 had an ethical concern in that it perpetuated stereotypes about women. The study involved observing and interviewing couples who had experienced violence within their relationship.
However, the researchers framed the study in a way that suggested that domestic violence was a "mutual combat" rather than a form of abuse perpetuated by men against women. This perpetuated the harmful stereotype that domestic violence is a problem caused by both partners in a relationship rather than a form of abuse perpetuated by men against women. While the study did not involve the use of animals or cause physical harm to participants, it was conducted without consent. The researchers did not obtain informed consent from the participants, and they did not provide adequate protection for the participants' confidentiality. This is a significant ethical concern in any research study, as it violates the fundamental principle of respect for autonomy and the protection of human subjects. In conclusion, while the Sherman and Berk domestic violence study did not involve the use of animals or cause physical harm to participants, it did perpetuate harmful stereotypes about women and was conducted without proper consent and confidentiality protections. These ethical concerns highlight the importance of conducting research studies in an ethical and responsible manner, with the welfare and rights of human subjects always being a top priority.
Learn more about stereotype here:
https://brainly.com/question/11828816
#SPJ11
the court case in which it was held that workers' unions are not illegal was:
The court case that held workers' unions are not illegal was: "The Trade Unions Act of 1926."
The Trade Unions Act of 1926 was a landmark legislation in India that recognized the right of workers to form unions and gave them legal protection. Prior to this act, workers' unions were considered illegal and were not recognized by the law. The act was a result of long-drawn struggles by the working class to secure their rights and improve their working conditions. The act also laid down provisions for the registration of trade unions, their rights, and liabilities, and provided immunity to registered unions and their members from certain legal actions. The act has undergone several amendments since its inception and continues to be an important legislation for workers' rights in India.
Learn more about Workers Union here:
https://brainly.com/question/984976
#SPJ11
any method of dealing that is commonly used in a particular field is known as:
The method of dealing commonly used in a particular field is known as a "practice."
In any given field or profession, there are certain ways of doing things that have been developed over time and have become widely accepted as the standard practice. These practices may be formalized through regulations, guidelines, or industry standards, or they may simply be based on tradition and experience. For example, in medicine, there are established practices for diagnosing and treating different illnesses, while in law, there are specific procedures for filing legal documents and conducting trials. It is important for professionals to be knowledgeable about the practices in their field in order to provide effective and efficient services to their clients or patients.
Know more about practice here:
https://brainly.com/question/24313388
#SPJ11
A program manager implemented a new policy designed to increase productivity. Productivity went up after the new policy was implemented. on Based on the above statements, is the following conclusion true, false, or is there not enough information to determine? The new policy designed to increase productivity worked. O True O False O Not Enough Information
True, the new policy designed to increase productivity worked. Based solely on the information given, we can conclude that the new policy was successful in increasing productivity.
The given statements suggest that a program manager implemented a new policy aimed at increasing productivity. After the implementation of the new policy, productivity went up. From these statements, we can infer that the new policy had a positive impact on productivity.
While it's possible that other factors could have contributed to the increase in productivity, the information provided supports the conclusion that the new policy was effective in achieving its intended goal of increasing productivity.
Of course, there may be additional details or data that could shed further light on the situation. For example, it would be useful to know more about the specific policy that was implemented, as well as how the program manager measured productivity before and after the policy was put in place.
Learn more about productivity: https://brainly.com/question/30333196.
#SPJ11
Which of the following is true about a majority decision reached by the U.S. Supreme Court?
A) All the judges agree as to the outcome and reasoning used to decide a case.
B) A majority of the judges agree as to the outcome but not the reasoning used to decide a case.
C) A majority of the justices agree as to the outcome and reasoning used to decide a case.
D) An equal number of judges vote for and against the petitioner and case remains undecided.
B. A majority of the judges agree as to the outcome but not the reasoning used to decide a case. A majority decision in the U.S. Supreme Court means that more than half of the judges have agreed on the outcome of a case.
But judges may have different reasoning or legal interpretations for reaching that decision. In cases where there is a split decision or a tie, the case may be sent back to a lower court for reconsideration or may remain undecided. It's important to note that the Supreme Court's decisions have a significant impact on American law and society, as they establish legal precedents that guide future cases and interpretations of the Constitution.For example, in a 5-4 decision, five justices may agree that a law is unconstitutional and should be struck down, but each justice may have a different rationale for reaching that conclusion.
The justices may write separate concurring opinions, in which they explain their individual reasoning for the decision, or they may join together to write a single majority opinion that reflects their shared outcome but not necessarily their individual reasoning.However, this is relatively rare because the Supreme Court typically consists of an odd number of justices to avoid such situations.
Learn more about judges here:
https://brainly.com/question/1059156
#SPJ11
The major differences between the House and the Senate include all of the following EXCEPT
A. the length of their terms.
B. the size of the institutions.
C. the method of determining their constituencies.
D. their role in the impeachment process.
E. their power in the legislative process.
The major differences between the House and the Senate include all of the following EXCEPT the method of determining their constituencies.
The House of Representatives is the lower chamber of the United States Congress and is based on population. The number of representatives per state is determined by the state's population. Members of the House are elected for two-year terms.
The Senate, on the other hand, is the upper chamber of the United States Congress and has two senators per state, regardless of the state's population. Senators serve six-year terms, and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years.
Other differences between the House and Senate include their size, with the House being larger, and their role in the impeachment process, with the House having the power to impeach and the Senate having the power to conduct a trial. The House also has greater power in initiating revenue-raising bills, while the Senate has greater power in approving presidential appointments and treaties.
Know more about the House and the Senate here:
https://brainly.com/question/1176086
#SPJ11
