Pub 972: Fill & Download for Free

Yes it does. There’s a $2,000 child tax credit (CTC) in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If you didn’t get it, then your return was incorrect or you earned more than $400,000 (married) or $200,000 (single). Look at Pub 972 for some answers.

Toronto is blessed with a lot of interesting bars and pubs, and answers are likely going to be subjective. My favourite pub is The Only Cafe (972 Danforth Ave, Toronto), which is well known for an amazing assortment of interesting beers. Cramped and quirky, but I love it!

The claim that the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly is one primarily related to tax protesters, and sometimes asserted by popular sovereigntists (also known as “sovereign citizens”. The basics of the claim are outlined quite well by Wikipedia:Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.The first argument, related to the text of the amendment, was rejected plainly in United States v. Thomas (1986):Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule". If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462–463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.The second argument, related to Ohio’s statehood, is based on a state law passed in 1956 related to some dispute regarding the precise date on which Ohio entered the Union. This argument has also been clearly rejected, such as in Baker v. Commissioner (1978):Petitioner's theory [that Ohio was not a state until 1953 and that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified] is based on the enactment of Pub. L. 204, ch. 337, 67 Stat. 407 (1953) relating to Ohio's Admission into the Union. As the legislative history of this Act makes clear, its purpose was to settle a burning debate as to the precise date upon which Ohio became one of the United States. S. Rept. No. 720 to accompany H.J. Res. 121 (Pub. L. 204), 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (1953). We have been cited to no authorities which indicate that Ohio became a state later than March 1, 1803, irrespective of Pub. L. 204.Further, whether Ohio was a state or not is actually irrelevant, as the amendment was ratified by 41 other states, clearly exceeding the 36 required at the time.