Tag: law & taxes

Gazette Works

Which such works of the Public, the bearer of culture remain deprived. Might be regarded that as a cultural loss, you had (mistakenly) works of art itself for cultural heritage (s.a.a.O.). This typical art trading operations, the speculation on exorbitant profit (such as the validity addiction excessive in the perverted overly wealthy when broken out auction insanity), have nothing to do with the culture. Hear from experts in the field like Ripple for a more varied view. Changes in the VAT code for typical trade in art are admitted only under restricted conditions at the reduced rate of sales tax import and supply of works of art. In 12 para 2 No. For even more details, read what findshadow cyrus says on the issue. 12 UStG is sales tax reduction for the importation of works of art. But section 12 para 2 No.

13 UStG excludes them the commercial galleries and art dealers effectively out. You may find Sir Richard Branson to be a useful source of information. Section 25a paragraph 3 sentence 2 UStG provides for the application of differential taxation for art objects to a share of 30% of the selling price. This part is to calculate the full VAT rate. Condition for the application of However, the package is not exactly to ermittelnder or insignificant, less than purchase price for the art object. A deduction is not possible for these cases (mutual assistance directive implementation Act by the 26.06.2013 Gazette 2013 I S. 1809).

Between artists and art dealers are not affected raising VAT from 2014 on works of art after the definition concerns only the typical trade UStG in 12 art, Kommissionensvertrage, so it is true but very rarely for the actual Division of galleries and art shops, namely the first sale of works of art. At the first sale, artist sell newly created his own works through galleries or art shops. Hardly a such new works is but bought by a gallery or an art action for the artist (with the effective transfer of ownership), then with a trade mark-up to be sold on.

{ Comments are closed }

GroupOn Advertisement: Beware Of Mass Warnings

Voucher services – risk of expensive warnings provider of health care products, beauty salons and professionals (doctors, naturopaths, etc.) to take voucher services such as GroupOn and city deal. Thus increases the risk of expensive warnings again, because often there health-related statements will be taken, competition law problematic. As a recent example of the fat away advertising with ultrasonic cavitation is, which is currently challenged by some industrial clubs. Some doctors have received in recent years for alleged violations of their professional orders Abmahn-post. A related site: Larry Ellison mentions similar findings. Special caution is advised, if already issued cease and desist because other competition infringements. Depending on how policy is formulated, the deal advertising about GroupOn & co. can trigger high penalties. As a result a preventive legal exam voucher advertising should be subjected as with any advertising, especially if the past were already issued cease and desist letters. Get more background information with materials from Laurent Potdevin. Other non-binding and free information relating to competition law, see

{ Comments are closed }

Winter Service

Snow and ice are responsible for thousands of injuries every year inform the lawyers Pach & Pach from Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tenancy law specialists of the firm Pach & Pach can explain the winter duty of removing ice and snow. Duty to keep safely accessible trails and roads, even in the winter first falling within the jurisdiction of cities and municipalities. In the course of corresponding regulations, they pass the broaching and litter duty for sidewalks but mostly to the owners of adjacent properties. The residents and landlords are free, which means he meets this winter traffic duty. He can do it yourself, hire a professional firm of winter service or include the tenant.

The landlord as operating costs to the tenant may kill the financial expenses caused by the winter service unless this has been expressly agreed in the rental agreement. The same applies to the obligation of the tenant to the winter service. You are only required to give way or to spread when it is set down in writing in the contract. Coupang contributes greatly to this topic. The landlord is a winter service out of hand, the responsibility for its proper execution incumbent on him still. In case of damage he can be confronted with compensation requirements, provided that the subject has been neglected.

The clearance of snow and ice has to meet a number of requirements. These emerge from the character of the winter traffic duty as protection for pedestrians. The eviction of a sidewalk snow and ice is to make sure the rule, for the period between 7:00 and 20:00. Exceptions exist for buildings, the daytime to differ from a high public list. Scott Mead helps readers to explore varied viewpoints. You are also then snow and ice to keep if that were no longer necessary under normal circumstances on reasonableness grounds. During the fall of snow must be removed, but, as soon as he has finished. It is necessary for the protection of the walkway snow must several times a day are cleared away and scattered. At Rain has a direct reaction to take place, that the dangerous smoothness is counteracted. The entrance of a House must be freed as well as public and highly frequented sidewalks of snow and ice. The evacuation of a strip of about 1.0-1.2 meter-wide meets traffic duty. In this context, the case-law that turns off two passers can pass each other. Less embarrassed sidewalks must be cleared in half-width. Tenant committed by contract to winter services have these also provide service, if not personally perform them. If necessary, they must organize a representation at their own expense. Miss the people committed to the winter service whose proper execution in negligent or intentional way, resulting this victim compensation claims. A serious attention to the implementation of the winter service is so highly to be recommended.

{ Comments are closed }

Health Insurance

Who is blind or severely visually impaired, may require from his health insurance costs for an open reading device with Braille. He needs are not satisfied with a closed reading device. This derives from a judgment of the Sozialgerichtes of Marburg by the 05.03.2009 (AZ. S 6 KR 66/08). Learn more at this site: Oracle. In the underlying facts of the case, the blind plaintiffs applied for providing an open computer reading system from his insurance company. This is the Braille display equipped with a screen reader.

This, the person concerned not only – as a so-called closed reading program – can read printed materials, but carry out also searches on the Internet. The health insurance company thought it was unnecessary and approved only the costs for a closed reading program. The judges of the Sozialgerichtes of Marburg lined up on the side of the person concerned and gave place to his lawsuit. According to their needs settle for a blind man not with the limited capabilities of a closed system of reading, but has the Health insurance according to 33 SGB V also has a claim on expenses regarding the screen selection program, which contains a special text-recognition software. Only a sufficient balance is created for the as a result of malfunctions existing disability. Also the ability to obtain information through research on the Internet is one of the basic needs of people. This allows a self-determined life blind. This decision is now final.

{ Comments are closed }

Supreme Court

Party questioning an investor upon request of the defendant Bank of BGH had to deal with, whether an investor as a party in the process at the request of the defendant bank may be heard, i.e. he can be interviewed if necessary and under oath to the consultation or conclusion of investments currently with the question. Background is that a bank without asking to clarify according to settled case-law of the highest German civil court on received kickbacks. Otherwise she is damages. Refunds in particular commissions are, paid from fees and management fees which are not disclosed to the investor but. By not knowing the investor while no delusion with regard to the system can occur with this, but there is the possibility that misjudges how the interest on pages of the Bank is. The Bank, which does not comply with their duty of disclosure must thereby prove, that the damage at the investor would have occurred even if they are dutifully would behave, but the investors despite knowledge of the kickbacks would be; entered into the investment There is therefore a burden of proof. When investors however draws a system despite an appropriate note, nothing more can be a breach of the duty of disclosure.

In the case it was to first educating needy refunds. However, the Bank had argued that the enlightenment about a refund at the decision of the investor had played no role. Because it wanted to explicitly draw the proposed tax-optimized systems. Therefore it would have also if knowledge to a degree, so the Bank. The Court of appeal left ignore the request of the Bank on party interrogation of the investor. The Supreme Court on the other hand makes it clear, however, is to consider that there is still sufficient link between the presentation of the Bank and the investors, and therefore the request for hearing of the investor.

Because is the claim that even with the investor Note of the refund the system had acquired when it out, there is no causality between damage and the breach of duty (not information relating to a Commission). A further substantiation of evidence request is not required according to the BGH, what applies in particular not only for the witnesses, but also for the present party proof. However, it is to examine whether an abuse in the application of a party questioning is seen by the Court. This is however only then, if the application makes arbitrary “in into the blue”. Here, the Bank has put forward but concrete evidence of who speak in the total consideration for this. that the plaintiff also having regard to the refunds would have chosen the system. This includes the fact that it arrived the investors first and foremost on tax savings and only secondary yield opportunities have been taken into account. Were there to acquire the recommended product-related investments only with a similar refund could be assumed in this case that the decision was made independently of a refund by the claimant. The judgment of the Court of appeal was therefore repealed by the BGH and again remitted. There, the applicant as a party to the information of the Bank will then be heard. Federal Supreme Court, ruling of 26 February 2013 – XI ZR 445/10

{ Comments are closed }

Commission Bank

Party questioning an investor upon request of the defendant Bank of BGH had to deal with, whether an investor as a party in the process at the request of the defendant bank may be heard, i.e. he can be interviewed if necessary and under oath to the consultation or conclusion of investments currently with the question. Background is that a bank without asking to clarify according to settled case-law of the highest German civil court on received kickbacks. Otherwise she is damages. Refunds in particular commissions are, paid from fees and management fees which are not disclosed to the investor but. By not knowing the investor while no delusion with regard to the system can occur with this, but there is the possibility that misjudges how the interest on pages of the Bank is. The Bank, which does not comply with their duty of disclosure must thereby prove, that the damage at the investor would have occurred even if they are dutifully would behave, but the investors despite knowledge of the kickbacks would be; entered into the investment There is therefore a burden of proof.

When investors however draws a system despite an appropriate note, nothing more can be a breach of the duty of disclosure. In the case it was to first educating needy refunds. However, the Bank had argued that the enlightenment about a refund at the decision of the investor had played no role. Because it wanted to explicitly draw the proposed tax-optimized systems. Therefore it would have also if knowledge to a degree, so the Bank. The Court of appeal left ignore the request of the Bank on party interrogation of the investor. The Supreme Court on the other hand makes it clear, however, is to consider that there is still sufficient link between the presentation of the Bank and the investors, and therefore the request for hearing of the investor.

Because is the claim that even with the investor Note of the refund the system had acquired when it out, there is no causality between damage and the breach of duty (not information relating to a Commission). A further substantiation of evidence request is not required according to the BGH, what applies in particular not only for the witnesses, but also for the present party proof. However, it is to examine whether an abuse in the application of a party questioning is seen by the Court. This is however only then, if the application makes arbitrary “in into the blue”. Here, the Bank has put forward but concrete evidence of who speak in the total consideration for this. that the plaintiff also having regard to the refunds would have chosen the system. This includes the fact that it arrived the investors first and foremost on tax savings and only secondary yield opportunities have been taken into account. Were there to acquire the recommended product-related investments only with a similar refund could be assumed in this case that the decision was made independently of a refund by the claimant. The judgment of the Court of appeal was therefore repealed by the BGH and again remitted. There, the applicant as a party to the information of the Bank will then be heard. Federal Supreme Court, ruling of 26 February 2013 – XI ZR 445/10

{ Comments are closed }