Blog

Information Name Preferred Grade Level (1 pt)

Canada Revenue Agency requires that Registered Charities file the T3010 no later than 12 months after the end of the Charity’s fiscal period.

NFH plans to issue official donation receipts to the restaurants, based on the original purchase price of the food they donate to the public. They aren’t worried because they don’t think that Canada Revenue Agency would be concerned since they won’t need to pay much tax since they are a charity. 1) Explain any issues Canada Revenue Agency would have with this charitable receipt treatment. (2 marks) 2) What changes do you recommend to NFH with regards to charitable receipting and why? (2 marks)

I understand that while using HonorLock Extension I have to do an environment check. I understand while using HonorLock Extension that conversing, or anything that may appear as talking to another person in my environment will be viewed as academic dishonesty and actions will be taken as a result. I also understand that using any form of reference while taking a test using HonorLock Extension including books, internet, magazines, people, phones, etc.. will be viewed as academic dishonesty and actions will be taken as a result.

I understand that this course requires basic knowledge of the use of office suite programs (like Word or excel), the internet, and email.  I also understand that proper etiquette MUST be used in all communication with my instructor (including verbal and written).  

I understand that this course requires basic Canvas knowledge. If I am struggling with Canvas, I can contact the Canvas help desk (phone, chat, email)., which is available 24/7.  I also understand that if I need help with HonorLock Extension or McGraw-Hill Connect, there is a ‘Technical Support’ module on the course site’s Modules page that has contact information for both.

Same facts as #63. Except Neff is charged with Quade’s murder. How should the judge rule?

Sandra and Bill made an oral contract in which Bill agreed to buy 12 different rare baseball cards from Sandra.  The day after the two of them allegedly made the deal, Bill wrote down from memory the 12 different cards he had agreed to purchase as well as the purchase price for each card.  The total purchase price according to his document was $5,280.  The next day, Sandra delivered the cards and demanded $8,560.  Bill protested, saying that was more than the price they had agreed on.  Ultimately the two of them could not agree, and Sandra sued Bill for breach of contract. At trial, Bill testified about the deal he made with Sandra, but he could not remember exactly how much he had agreed to pay for each card.  His attorney asked if he wrote down the prices for the cards.  Bill said he did, and he confirmed that at the time he wrote down the prices, the prices were fresh in his memory, and the record accurately reflected his memory at the time.  His attorney then gave him the document he made the day after the deal was made, and (over Sandra’s objection) Bill read it out to the jury. Bill’s attorney then admitted the document into evidence (again over Sandra’s objection). While the jury was deliberating, they asked to see the document, and (again over Sandra’s objection) the document was sent back into the jury room for the jury to examine.  Did the trial judge make the proper rulings?

Teel and his wife were driving westbound on a remote section of Highway 46 when they collided with a car driven by Finney, in which his wife was a passenger. All four were killed, and no eyewitness saw the accident. The cars collided at the intersection of the highway and a county road, and the police officer who examined the scene concluded that the Finney vehicle was entering the highway from the north and was in the process of turning left (eastward) when it was struck.             Teel’s estate sues Finney’s estate for wrongful death. The police officer testified about the scene, and the court allows him to give his opinion as an expert in accident reconstruction on the probable speed and positions of the cars at the time of impact. Because the accident looked like one that could happen only if one of the two drivers was at fault, and because there was no direct proof on this point, Teel’s estate sought to prove that Teel was exercising due care. Teel’s estate called witnesses Budge and Frese, who are prepared to testify that they knew Teel for over twenty years and that he was “a good, careful driver.” Finney’s estate objects that the proffered evidence “is just proof of character, which cannot be admitted to show conduct on a particular occasion.” Teel’s estate argues that Budge and Frese’s testimony on this point should be admitted as “evidence of habit under FRE 406.” How should the judge rule?

Defendant is charged with vehicular homicide. The government’s sole witness describes how a person fitting Defendant’s description drove down the street, smashed into a pedestrian (killing him instantly), and sped away. Defendant’s defense is: 1) alibi and 2) mistaken identification. Defendant seeks to cross-examine the government’s witness on the following issues: I)          The precise time and date of the incident. II)         Whether the pedestrian looked both ways before entering the street. III)        The quality of the witness’s eyesight. IV)       Whether the pedestrian screamed “LOOK OUT!” before the car ran into him. Which, if any, of these issues is relevant and admissible?