I bolded what I had a thought on. Not sure if this is the right place to put it or if it has been brought up before, but Casey is still under 24 and living in her parents home. Do we know if they would still claim her on her taxes? If they would then how in the heck did they not know that she didn't have a job?
I've been wondering about the A-et al tax returns from the beginning. If KC's 'job' paid her more than the low to mid 3,000's over the past few years (per year, depending on the year), then the A's couldn't (or shouldn't) have taken her as a dependent on their tax retun. Who took KLee? Claiming her could have provided either KC (if she HAD income) or the Anthony's with tax benefits such as Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit, Child Care Credit and shielded a hunk of income from taxation even if only the exemption for her were taken. Wonder who did or didn't claim both KC/ KLee. It might be informative to see the A's tax returns. If they took KC and/or Klee, then they should have had a pretty good idea about what KC was or wasn't making at 'work', which might indicate they also knew there was no big job at Universal.