District Court Berlin bans Portuguese manufacturer of paper Office paper as ‘ 100 per cent recycled’ to describe / environmental label jury welcomes the ruling of Gluckstadt/Berlin, may 5, 2008 – the regional court of Berlin has the Portuguese paper company Portucel DIN be banned (even non-residents) in a judgment of 22 April 2008, “explorer” A4 Office paper as “100% recycled” to refer to. Portucel used in the production of this paper offcuts which are incurred during the production of fresh pulp paper, so in circulation were not 50%. The Court joined the applicant Steinbeis Temming paper indicating that such a product rather than recycled paper could be advertised because this advertising was contrary to the circuit idea characteristic of the recycling. Consumers expect that a recycled paper using recycled paper will made, which previously used had been in circulation. The application of the product as a “100% recycled” is therefore misleading and constitutes an unfair business practice. The environmental label jury evaluates this ruling as a clear victory for the environment and consumer protection.
It prevents a watering-down of standards for recycling paper and reinforces the credibility of product labels, because they ensure future reliable data about the actual content. “The consumer must rely on it, that where recycling paper is real recycled paper in it is”, as Prof. Dr. Edda Muller, Deputy. Chairman of the environmental label jury. The only eco-label, which reliably prescribes the use of 100% recycled paper and prohibits the use of harmful chemicals, is the Blue Angel. Thus he differs fundamentally from all other eco-labels. Contact: Michael Soffge, Managing Director of Steinbeis Temming paper, Tel.: + 49 4124 911 377,
Lawyer Alexander Bredereck, Berlin to costs accounting in commercial spaces: What deadlines apply here? For many years, we operate primarily focusing on labour and tenancy law as lawyers. We deepen this experience through regular training and constant technical exchange. So we can already settle possible points of contention when designing your contracts and your terms and conditions in its favour. Has in a recent decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, judgment of 27.1.2010 XII ZR 22/07) decided that in the commercial space leasing the period of 556 paragraph 3 sentence 3 BGB, stating that the landlord with claims costs order is excluded, if billing is not within one year after the end of the accounting period, does not apply. It follows that the lessor in principle also for longer historical periods can be still operating expense and the lessee thereof must equalize resulting additional tax amounts. Arises in the course of this decision the question which now limits for the settlement of costs in the commercial law of tenancy? First of all, it is to terminate the lease.
If there a specific billing period has been agreed, this shall apply. Is not agreed upon deadline, the landlord of the advance payments must settle within a reasonable period of time. The appropriate deadline regularly to the expiry of one year after the end of the billing period. What are the implications of a delayed billing in the commercial law of tenancy? A delayed billing does not cause that the landlord with an additional tax is excluded. The landlord defaults the settlement, the tenant can take to the landlord on a settlement claim (claim for settlement grant). He can also make the ongoing costs prepaid.
Tenant Tip: think about whether you take the landlord grant a settlement claim. This is regularly only makes sense if you expect credits from the operating expenses. Tip owners: If you too long with the operating expenses wait can forfeit claims on payment. If a period is agreed in the lease, you should meet the deadline anyway. Is not agreed upon deadline, you should make at least if you expect an additional within one year after the end of the accounting period the settlement. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander polymath and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor Berlin-Mitte. Polymath Willkomm lawyers Berlin-Charlottenburg: Kurfurstendamm 216 (corner of pheasant road), 10719 Berlin (Metro station Uhlandstrasse, suburban trains and Metro station Zoologischer Garten) Berlin-Mitte: Palais am Festungsgraben, 10117 Berlin, access via road under den Linden (rail and subway station Friedrichstrasse) Branch Office Berlin-Marzahn: Marzahn promenade 28, 12679 Berlin (Bahn Marzahn) Potsdam: Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse 33, 14469 Potsdam Tel. (030) 4 000 4 999 E-mail: everything to the tenancy:
The work of companies will once again complicated the work of companies is again more complicated, reason, this time, is that the financial management accepts the changes of the Bundesfinanzhof for tax deduction. The Bundesfinanzhof had decided last year that now a deduction for performance or delivery is excluded, unless the performance from the outset for the non-commercial use is intended. If from the outset, that the performance has used a non-economic use, the right to deduct for services or supplies dropped. Instead of the taxation of value duties at the time of their free sampling, no deduction is possible in these cases. The Ministry of Finance has dealt now in detail with these judgments of the German and set new rules for the future deductions. From the writing, an example goes out that the exact handling of input tax deduction requires a particularly detailed knowledge of the value added tax law only partially. The practical example is that so, that an entrepreneur who purchased acquires two concert tickets and a laptop for a raffle, can get no tax deduction for the laptop, while on the other hand the total activity is crucial for the cards.
The current situation is therefore a company to deduct is entitled according to the judgements if it wants to use services of the economic activities for the provision of payment services. There must be a direct and immediate link between output and input power, only indirect purposes are no matter. If the entrepreneurs already in benefits plans the services not for economic activities, but immediately and used only for a free withdrawal is, he is not entitled to the deduction. If an entrepreneur is planning a performance, which is used in part for its economic activities, as well as to the part for non-economic activities, then this must only within the framework claim the deduction of the planned use for the economic activities. It is only if it involves a non-economic activity and a private collection the right to the full deduction for mixed use. In this sense, private withdrawals are only withdrawals for the private use of a company as a natural person, as well as the private use of its staff, but not for example for the use of a non-profit-making purpose of an association. Whether the performance of the contractor is involved, is dependent on whether there is a direct and immediate connection with initial sales. Absence of a direct and immediate link between several output transactions and a certain input sales, companies to deduct can be entitled, if it belongs to the general expenses cost of input services and are therefore part of the price of the services, as well as the overall economic activity brings sales. There is more information about tax issues at LfK – consultancy and tax consulting.
Design options in the business sector: the cross insurance through Liechtenstein life insurance the death of a fellow entrepreneur or business partner raises usually unforeseeable financial consequences. Without appropriate preventive / the remaining fellow entrepreneurs have to deal with the community of heirs of the deceased, the company can run into liquidity difficulties or it faces operational uncertainties. Such risks can be hedged with tailored life insurance strategies. They require but a corresponding planning and – to improve tax – also of the understanding of role-playing between the policyholder, the insured persons and the rightful claimants. Just so-called private insuring models using life insurance in Liechtenstein have not only because of the tax benefits but in particular also because of individual design possibilities in terms of personal protection, estate planning and wealth transfer especially proven.
The PMS AG headquartered in Mauren/Liechtenstein has specialized in this field and works only with reputable insurance partners. Also due to the now established legal certainty by the German tax legislation, these intelligent insurance solutions of again very popular enjoy. Fellow entrepreneur of partnerships, shareholders of corporations but also other business partners hedge each other in many cases by means of a cross insurance for the event of death of the other. The reasons for this are manifold. For one, the insurance benefit for the acquisition of the shares of the deceased whose heirs with contractor is intended. On the other hand liquidity difficulties arise, which is considered to be bridged; Here, the benefits from a life insurance policy paid to other entrepreneurs at the death of the operator and help mitigate the short – and medium-term liquidity bottlenecks. Cross insurance as optimal tax optimization strategy, with entrepreneurs as policyholders and eligible person complete a life insurance policy on the different partners as insured persons. The death occurs B as the insured of the insurance policy of A partner dies so receives the death benefit from his own police A inheritance – and income-tax.
The industry-known watchdog associations shoot more and more on the market of for food supplements and balanced diets. In this case, a manufacturer of a dietary supplement with extracts of echinacea and elderflower was called off. Advertised was the product among other things with the statement: “The X containing a wealth of carefully selected natural substances such as echinacea and elderflower, which are known to be able to support the natural defences.” The watchdog Association relied on the interests of its own members, mind you own food supplement manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, and warned off 1924/2006 (health claims regulation, HCVO) the statement for violation of 11 LFGB and regulation. By the OLG Hamm, the matter had to be decided now final analysis. How often in these cases, the Court gave the watchdog Club right. According to the judges is the statement that echinacea and elderberry flowers give the property the product, for a significant To make sure neither scientifically sufficiently secured in the sense of the LFGB still not generally scientifically recognised within the meaning of the HCVO support natural defences. This could then be left, whether it would be sufficient meaning in both, if the scientific substantiation would result from a single work, based on convincing methods and findings. Already, the existence of a study proving a sufficiently safe, that the two mentioned substances have the advertised physiological effect, was not explained.
A summary of a meta-analysis presented in the English language, also leave as a so-called abstract not recognize whether the analysis is based on convincing methods. The analysis of the studies was neither in the English language completely have been submitted in German translation. It had been required to assess the suitability of the study. There was evidence, not even the daily dose of echinacea and the form of the statement. The widely known and enshrined in the popular belief opinion, Echinacea and elderberry could the immune system does not support for themselves, rich as scientific evidence.