In the Johnson v. Calvert case, the California Supreme Court eventually decided the case using which of the following standards?
A) gestational
B) intent
C) biological/genetic
D) best interest of the child
Question 2
Kim and Alan's divorce is final. The court decree orders Alan to pay Kim alimony in the amount of 1000.00 per month for a minimum of four years with an automatic review by the court at the end of the first year, or a request by either party for a modification upon the showing of a substantial change in circumstances. Begrudgingly Alan made the first two payments. One night when Alan was at his neighborhood watering hole, he struck up a conversation with a guy holding down the barstool next to him. Alan found out this guy was recently burned at the alimony stake. The two began commiserating when Buddy, the inebriate on the seat next to Alan, shared what he had heard from a friend. Alan should make his payments like this. Alan should at as much alimony in a lump sum and then decrease payment or end it during the first three calendar years following his divorce. Alan realized if he did this, he would have a great tax deduction.
His bar-Buddy was a genius Why should Kim get all the benefits? If he had to give her his hard-earned money, he should receive the benefit of taking it of his taxes. Is there anything wrong with this brilliant idea? In your response, explain the tax implications of alimony.