View Single Post
Old 03-09-2021   #2
Nho nhe
R4 Cao Thủ Võ Lâm
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 969
Thanks: 632
Thanked 528 Times in 325 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Rep Power: 10
Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8
Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8Nho nhe Reputation Uy Tín Level 8
Default

Quote:
The Trump administration’s Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 also enabled incarcerated people to get stimulus relief money, largely because the language did not exclude them. Ironically, Cotton voted for that relief package.

Soon after, the IRS changed its stance, arguing that prisoners were not entitled to relief payments. This was challenged in a lawsuit filed on behalf of incarcerated individuals, which argued that the decision to withhold stimulus payments was “arbitrary and capricious.” In October 2020, a U.S. District Court judge in California ordered the IRS and Treasury Department to send relief money to the incarcerated within certain deadlines.

A bill pushing forward the second round of coronavirus relief payments in December 2020 — also voted for by Cotton — did not restrict payments for incarcerated people.
Nho nhe_is_offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Nho nhe For This Useful Post:
8 tàng (03-13-2021)
Quay về trang chủ Lên đầu Xuống dưới Lên 3000px Xuống 3000px
 
Page generated in 0.11531 seconds with 10 queries