Chocolates R' Us, Inc is owned equally by Desi and his wife Lucy, each of whom hold 550 shares in the company. Lucy plans to reduce her ownership in the company, with the company planning to redeem 475 of her shares for $10,000 per share on December 31 of this year. Assume Desi and Lucy are not getting along and have separated due to marital discord, but are not legally separated. Because they no longer talk to each other, they communicate only through their accountant. Lucy wants to argue that she should not be treated as owning any of Desi's stock in Chocolates because of their hostility toward each other. Can family hostility be used as an argument to voice the family attribution rules?

Chocolates R' Us, Inc.

Family hostility cannot be used as an argument to void the family attribution rules.

Lucy is still legally married to Desi.  What the husband, Desi, therefore, owes, she owes equally despite their separation and her intention to reduce her ownership in their joint company.

Explanation:

Family Attribution Rules:  Section 318 of the Internal Revenue Code says an individual shall be considered as owning the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his spouse and his children, grandchildren, and parents, including legally adopted children.

being born in poverty would limit the people's chances, opportunities and benefits.

this happen because of several things, such as:

- poor people tend to gain less access to good education and nutrition. this mean that their chance to obtain high paying jobs would also be limited.

- poor people tend to socialize with other poor people while the rich tend to socialize with other rich people. this means that simply throguh their social circle, rich people would have more business opportunities compared to the poor people.

- rich people tend to have more capital in their disposal. this would benefit them in business since it is far easier for them to fund their business operation compared to poor people.

answer; descriptive statistics;