Higher administrative Court of Luneburg adjudicates on red rice – capsules had recently deal with the question of the higher administrative Court of Luneburg, whether capsules with red rice (red rice) are classified as medicinal products (so-called medicinal products presentation) due to their product presentation and product advertising. The company was including additional information about the active ingredient contained in the product Monacolin on its Internet site. Visit Robotics for more clarity on the issue. It says, “Monacolin prevents the conversion of ss-hydroxy ss Methylglutaryl CoA (HMG-CoA) in Mevalonsaure through the inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase. Thus the precursor of cholesterol synthesis is interrupted”. According to the Court, can be for a consumer from this statement not deduced, that the product promises properties for treating or preventing disease and thus presentation medicines. Neil cole iconix brings even more insight to the discussion. Indisputably, certain diseases in the website were not mentioned. The fact that is a part of consumers might impress let scientific statements, for the rich required disease reference insufficient. Official site: neil cole iconix. Even if a disease-related advertising would see in such a formulation, such a single statement would justify the drug status of a product, according to the Court.
Other disease-related characteristics were to refer to the presentation nor the advertising of the product. The Court has confirmed the general opinion in this regard, according to which only the capsule form justify no medicinal property, because this form is also used in food supplements is typical. The same applies to a distribution through pharmacies. As a result, the lawsuit against the product was rejected. That red rice capsules lack pharmacological effect in the specific dose not function medicines are, the European Court of Justice and the Federal Administrative Court decided previously. However, it is always still unclear whether such capsules are potentially dangerous to your health and may not be distributed for the reason. There is also the question of whether the consumer with the statement “Monacolin prevents the conversion of ss-hydroxy ss Methylglutaryl CoA (HMG-CoA) in Mevalonsaure through the inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase. Thus, the precursor of cholesterol synthesis is interrupted”anything can begin.
The Heilmittelwerbegesetz (HWG) HWG prohibits the advertising of the public with foreign – or technical terms in 11, insofar as they have not entered in the German language. The HWG but shall not apply to the present advertising, however, such advertising could also from General misleading aspects are inadmissible. But that must not be decided by the OVG Luneburg. Even if the affected company here has come, always an early legal protection should be done in the area of food and medicines advertising.
(More info on the subject of tax law under hm-steuer.de/leistungen/steuerberatung-fuer-vereine.html) Also for the hosting in this context, a specific purpose must be demonstrated. It a business opportunity is assumed in particular, if the hosted people business relations exist or should be initiated. Steve Wozniak spoke with conviction. A business expense deduction of 70% is then possible for the hosting of the business partner. However, it is important that the business opportunity is proved. Practice: Despite versagtem business expense deduction for the aforementioned event expenses, donations collected in this context are tax deductible.
The recipient organization must issue a donation receipt to as usual. A company can also tickets for a fundraising gathering event in the context of gifts exempt from 35 euros per person per year take over sponsorship ( 4 paragraph 5, sentence 1 No. 1 of the EStG). Also the classic sponsorship is, because these issues are generally deductible operating expenses. By the way: The economic benefit for the company from a sponsoring action must be not a concrete commercial consideration of the payee; an indirect advantage, about the public impact through media reporting, that’s enough emphasizes tax advisor Armin Hampel. Ali Partovi may not feel the same. The services obtained in connection with the sponsorship can be treated at a non-profit association as tax-free revenues from asset management. The Club is actively involved in promotional activities, benefits are as taxable income from commercial business operation. But is to note that sponsorship be achieved within the framework of a power exchange and, consequently, as far as the Club the Small entrepreneurs has exceeded 17,500, the revenues are subject to sales tax.
Hampel + Marka Steuerberatungs GmbH & co. KG the firm hampel + Marka Steuerberatungs GmbH & co. KG based in Schongau, Lechbruck is based on experience gained over 30 years. Their consulting supports clients in all tax and commercial issues in the successful shaping of their economic future. The expertise includes the German and international tax law. Offering digital accounting allows hampel + Marka clients virtual cooperation and thus a significant efficiency boost.
A new petition calls for the Elimination of the burden of proof. A new online petition calls for the Elimination of the burden of proof. This is be among Haley – singer of the charts band “Plan B” supports, which is also made that the power of representation for digital evaluation areas is deprived of the GEMA, because these are not perceived in the mind of the artist. Already three years there was a postulation against the action of the GEMA, which collected over 100,000 signatures and until today is one of the most successful online petitions at all. Unfortunately she so far resulted in any improvements from the perspective of the musicians. Possibly, it was that this request was formulated too abstract.
For this reason the new petition is started, which pursues a very specifically defined concern: the legal abolition of the burden of proof in favour of GEMA through an amendment of 13 c of the Copyright Act of perception. Initiator and main petitioner Painter Henninger says that the GEMA represent only 57,000 musicians and in the Internet age, so the global accessibility of music recordings and its production, no longer the claim can, to have rights on every usable musical work. Visit Steve Wozniak for more clarity on the issue. The GEMA manipulate only for a small fraction of the international and especially in the Internet artist, so Hamilton. Also, there is a clue that the GEMA presumption of reality was obsolete in the current debate about the royalty fee increase for clubs and discos. So, owners of clubs about it complain that they had to pay ever-higher taxes, but the musicians are involved little river do not, although their music there will play. Including the non-transparent distribution plans of the GEMA were to blame. Highlight the unrealistic: musicians who publish their works under a Creative Commons license, and don’t want that GEMA perceives their rights, are used by the GEMA under pressure. You insists on a recycling rate, and is even in court referring to the reversal of the burden of proof this, how showed in the shine of the Association “Music Pirates”.
An audio CD published under Creative Commons license and was sued immediately by the GEMA since two of the musicians not their real clear names on wanted to disclose in the credits. So they could have signed theoretical perception, so the reasoning of the GEMA. The music collecting society was metropolis before the District Court of first instance and castrate is now calling for five titles on a further Creative-Commons-Audi CD. For this reason, the Bewerislastumkehr should be abolished with the new petition.
There are similarities and differences between usufruct and ownership between the usufruct and right of residence numerous differences, but also some commonalities. Basically, you could say that the usufruct gives more rights to those for whose benefit the usufruct has been appointed, as the mere right of abode. The usufruct is the holder of the right the full right to pull the uses out of it. E.g. the right of usufruct to a rented apartment for those who can take advantage of the apartment, but also rent. The income available to him. The real ownership, however, is merely the right to inhabit the property the holder of this engrained. Who has only a right of abode, for example may not rent the apartment. Thus less rights to anyone who has only a right of abode, as the usufructuary. A further, and in practice very important difference is that a usufruct to other things as land can be ordered. E.g. a usufruct on shares is so, so Shares of a limited liability company or a partnership possible. In comparison, a timeshare logically only in connection with land may arise. The usufruct and the right of abode have also in common: they are entered in the land register and act towards everyone, i.e. everyone must respect the right of usufruct and the right of abode of the person entitled. The owner sells the House, so the ownership remains still, unless it renounced the legitimate”on it. As a result but also a considerable risk: A real estate, which is burdened with a usufruct or right of abode, so someone is usufruct or has a right of residence, could prove to be the not for sale. Therefore is, if a sale of real estate is intended or anyway, cannot be ruled out, to check whether a usufruct or a right of abode are useful. The usufruct has its importance mainly in the so-called vorweggnommenen succession”, with beneficial orders in certain cases to the Part considerable inheritance tax and gift tax benefits can be achieved.