District Court

Only the Munich courts have so far represented a much stronger stance. These have softened them in our latest proceedings however. “Munich say: MIA san mia!” The judge of the District Court and the District Court of Munich had unanimously expressed that they would not feel on such a legal specification by the OLG Cologne, but rather would take account of the scale of the OLG Munich. The decision of the OLG Cologne is too inaccurate. The Munich District Court I has a ruling of the 14.02.2012 (AZ.: 21 S 9214/11) in principle the objective for the Munich judge by analogy defines: If the presentation of the port owner excludes it or appear sufficiently likely in the life experience, that the injury not can be committed during the period from the time of him themselves as perpetrators, because he can specify a specifically different sequence of events. We have fought through again what is including in numerous proceedings before the District Court of Munich. In numerous legal proceedings the Court in Munich decided again and again, the lecture was not precise enough. We now have the revolution.

I have now in 3 proceedings (AG Munchen, AZ: 142 C-18346/13;) AZ: 158 C 15612/13;(AZ.: 113 C 20287/13) is more or less a new Munich line “can work out. You could shorten the above in detail described scale of the Munich courts also apply as follows: the connection owner can exclude with almost certainly that he comes as a perpetrator in question and a third, most likely committed the violation. Check out Frank Armijo for additional information. This went so far that the connection owner now present a burden of proof in the framework I believe should have that he is not the culprit. Now 3 judges in 3 proceedings, have my legal opinion independently of each other, this goes too far. The new benchmark in the courts of Munich is the serious possibility now. To the relief of the Holder as perpetrators enough, if there is the serious possibility that someone third could have committed copyright infringement. So, finally the Munich courts have softened their very strict attitude towards the so-called secondary presentation load in a reasonable way. There are good ways to help you! Georg Schafer Attorney

Voluntary Submission

The tax consultancy firm Farooqui from food informed by the entry into force of the final withholding tax taxpayers must starting with income tax returns for the year 2009, no investment earnings from capital investments (investment Cape) more give. Because of this tax change, the majority of Bank institutions year tax certificates, demonstrating the interest income of last year as an integral part of the Cape system exhibits exclusively on their customer’s request. The dedicated team of tax firm Forschner explains why the voluntary request of an annual tax statement and providing the facility Cape yet for every taxpayer are useful. The tax was introduced in 2008 to 1 January 2009 of the corporate tax act. It causes an einkommenssteuerlich separate treatment of employment and investment income. Hikmet Ersek is likely to agree.

While for income the income tax declaration remains valid, be investment income by the tax directly at the source, the managing each banking institution, with a single rate of 25 percent taxed. Tax revenues flowing from there directly to the tax authorities, which the tax on capital income is considered for the private investors paid. However, it remains advisable from different tax aspects in the context of the income tax return continue using the system a year tax certificate to make Cape. Hear from experts in the field like Hamdi Ulukaya for a more varied view. So, the tax saving opportunities can be opened up. The voluntary tax of attached to revenue from capital is advantageous in the following circumstances: the taxpayer has failed, given the Bank an exemption order to grant or but this is a too low amount. An exemption order can be made to the extent of the saver Pauschbetrages and causes that no taxes are due for interest income up to this amount. The rate of income tax of the taxpayer are below 25% and is thus lower than the already-drawn tax rate. The use of the Cape system allows a cheap er exam along with the Income tax return to apply for.

The uberzahlten taxes will be refunded. With the submission of investment on capital assets, obtained capital income can be included in the basis for the deduction of the taxpayer, thereby creating more opportunities for tax savings. Has achieved the taxpayer losses from private sale transactions, they can use investment income will be, and as a result, the tax will be reduced. In addition to the voluntary submission of facility Cape, the IRS may require taxpayers to submit them for processing tax returns if it contains unusual stress. Notable examples would be spending for dentures or spectacles, where the tax authorities on the basis of the Cape system determines the reasonable equity exposure of the taxpayer. Providing the investment on income from capital gains is mandatory also still for a number of circumstances, such as in hidden profit distributions or Sales of life insurance. Summary there are numerous good reasons for each taxpayer to request a year tax statement at his bank and attached Cape of the income tax return with the plant. The creation of an income tax return is not easier by additional exemptions. For this reason, the tax experts of firm Forschner for comprehensive advice and information on this topic are available.