Maria Ulrich from Munich Tax Office informed of the tax audit there are only a few companies that are in favour a tax audit conducted by the IRS. Rather fear is spreading, whether one has done something wrong and must reckon with the consequences. Or you have the fear is not enough to have prepared. The concerns are unfounded but, because the IRS admits sufficient time in advance necessary preparations to take care of. In addition, there is the possibility to entrust himself to a professional in the field of taxation. A tax advisor knows the requirements of a tax audit and supports all key related areas.
The tax firm from Munich Maria Ulrich informed the tax audit. For complete peace of mind, the audit officially tax audit and is regulated in the rules of the Federal Ministry of finance. She is among traders, agricultural and forestry holdings and Individuals possible. When the tax audit, the tax authorities check steuererhebliche information of the taxpayer. These may relate to one or more types of taxes, and include one or several tax periods. Before the tax authorities visited the company, this receives a written notice.
Most companies like the idea of a review”not. They combine it with a sense of uncertainty and fear, wrong to have to behave, increases. The concerns are entirely unfounded, because who that relied on an accountant must fear no consequences. Also, a tax consultant supports detailed preparation for the appointment with the tax office. He is also present in the tax audit and can intervene and answer questions that arise for the client. As the taxpayer in determining the facts has a duty to cooperate, and he must make relevant documents available, the tax advisor supports here. For the case that the IRS detects ambiguities, the accountant is also the right partner. The tax office Maria Ulrich from Munich is anytime available for detailed information. Press contact tax firm Maria Ulrich contact: Maria Ulrich Nymphenburger Strasse 4, 80335 Munich Tel.: 089/41134860 fax: 089/41134829 email: Homepage:
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,
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.
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.