Week 4: Question 1
Blake, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, sold and conveyed two acres of land to Khron, who paid $14,000. At the time of the sale and conveyance, Blake appeared to be competent and Khron had no knowledge of Blake’s illness. One year later, Blake died. During the prior year, Blake had spent the $14,000 received from Khron. The executrix of Blake’s estate sued Khron to set aside the deed and recover the land conveyed to Khron. The executrix made no offer to pay $14,000 to Khron. Will the executrix succeed? Suppose it was shown that Khron knew about Blake’s condition at the time of the sale and conveyance of the land. Would this affect your answer? (Post is due before 11 PM Thursday.)
Week 4: Question 2
Walters, a business owner, filed tax returns for 2001, 2002, and 2003 using the cash basis. In 2004, Walters hired Erlich, a CPA, to prepare his income tax for 2004 using the accrual basis. While preparing the 2004 return, Erlich examined the prior years’ returns. Based on Erlich’s suggestions, Erlich prepared revised returns for the prior years, and Walters submitted these to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), claiming an $18,000 refund. Instead of receiving the refund, the IRS claimed Walters owed $134,000 in unpaid taxes and fines. Erlich told Walters that the IRS was mistaken and that he could clean up the simple problem for a fee of $1000.
After granting several extensions, the IRS notified Walters that Monday, October 5, 2008 was the deadline for filing a protest to the proposed assessment. On Saturday, October 3, Erlich called Walters to his office to sign the protest. When Walters arrived, Erlich produced a written contract with a fee agreement whereby Erlich was to receive $1000 plus 8 percent of any monies saved on the assessment. When Walters refused to sign the new fee agreement, Erlich told him that the protest had to be in the mail that afternoon to reach the IRS by Monday and that if the protest were not filed on time Walters would be liable for the $134,000 plus additional fines that had accrued since 2005. Walters signed the fee agreement, and the protest was filed on time. After reviewing the protest, the IRS reduced the assessment to $21,000. Erlich sent Walters a bill for $10,040. Walters sued to have the new fee arrangement rescinded. What legal theory will Walters argue? Who wins? How much does Walters owe Erlich for the service of preparing the protest? (Post is due before 11 PM Saturday.)
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..
With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.Read more
The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.Read more
The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.Read more
By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.Read more