Char and Russ Dasrup have one daughter, Siera, who is 16 years old. In November of last year, the Dasrup’s took in Siera’s 16 year old friend, Angela, who has lived with them ever since. The Dasrup’s have not legally adopted Angela but Siera often refers to Angela as "her sister." The Dasrup’s provide all of the support for both girls, neither girl receives any income during the year, and both girls live at the Dasrup’s residence. Which of the following statements is true regarding who Char and Russ may claim as dependents for the current year?
A. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child and they may claim Angela as a dependent qualifying child.
B. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child they are not allowed to claim Angela as a dependent.
C. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child and they may claim Angela as a dependent qualifying relative.
D. None of these statements is true.

B. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child they are not allowed to claim Angela as a dependent.

Explanation:

Dasprop does not legally adopt Angela, but Sierra often refers to Angela as "her sister." Dasarupa is supportive of both the girls, no income is earned by the girl during the year, and both the girls remain in the Dasarupa residence.

There is no adoption process with four more ropes here because Angela, who lives with them, is not a legal guardian

so correct option is B. They may claim Siera as a dependent qualifying child they are not allowed to claim Angela as a dependent.

"quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a condition of their employment. only supervisors who have the authority to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, can commit "quid pro quo" harassment.

37 i just had the same problem