News

Tax Savings 2011

Posted on

Taxes made easy with the multiple test winner in Mannheim, November 29, 2010. For many taxpayers, the annual tax return is a horror – confusing, complicated, tedious. What may be discontinued? Which documents are to be submitted? The 2011 tax savings “the academic working group, part of the Informationsdienstleisters Wolters Kluwer Germany, these and more questions answered quickly and safely. -Run structure of the multiple test winner among the tax programs, a document referrer”as well as a built-in tax inspector” bring the user simply and quickly to the target. Quickly through the tax return, taxpayers who want to take their income into their own hands, see the tax savings”a reliable partner and experts. Filed under: Boy Scouts.

Already with the launch of the software, and the selection of the mode of new tax”, a detailed introduction to the page is the user. Either in video or short descriptions are the latest legal Changes and program functions. The user is thus not only tax up to date, but already knows the most important features of the software. Step by step performs a thread”even the tax lay safely and quickly to the income tax return in connection with useful tips and hints. In an interview mode, all relevant data be queried it. The user has its information permanently and structured overview. In addition to the forms and systems, the IRS for a successful processing of your tax return requires evidence usually also. But which documents must be submitted, is not always entirely clear.

Individual help is the document referrer”. This creates a map divided into three points after documents which must be submitted, which must not be emitted and evidence of financial officials may want to see. Check, optimize, send even after complete entering of all data allows the tax savings”their users not alone. The software runs through the completion of tax return. In doing so, the input can easily with the tax inspector”investigated and optimized.

News

Aleksandar Silic

Posted on

Cologne regional court denied the applicability of 97a II copyright in computer game that has Cologne regional court in a recent decision by 10.01.2011 (cf. LG Cologne, decision by 10.01.2011, AZ.: 28 O 421/10) in the context of a legal aid application again the existence of a significant violation of law in the meaning of 97a (2) UrhG denies. The applicant made injunctive and legal costs against the connection owner due to unauthorized making available of computer game B”in a peer-to-peer network claims. The defendant connection owner affiliated applied for legal aid, which was rejected due to lack of success of the intended legal defense. The competent Chamber saw one of the defendants in the field-run possible EUR 100,-Cap for Attorney’s fees as omitted after summary examination in addition to the requirements of the fault liability. For the disputed breach, accessible making of a computer game, to the public if it were not a substantial Infringement of rights.

The provision of section 97a, para 2 is an exception provision, which is basically interpreted strictly. A minor violation of the law could be adopted only in particularly bearing cases. For adjusting a computer game could be discussed given the considerable effort which will operate in the programming and marketing of computer game and the risk of imitation not of the qualitative irrelevance. This recent decision of the regional court of Cologne is not surprising and is part of the decisions handed down in the past to 97a UrhG. The court sees a high substantial interference as given here alone in the fact that the contested file was a computer game. Thereby it supports this finding on the significant programming and marketing effort of the game itself, without going to the specific circumstances of the contested infringement. While it plays an essential role, what time and what amounts of data via the relevant Internet connection were made available and whether the video game at the time of the offence was ever yet successfully marketed. These circumstances are on the question of whether the rights holder has been severely in his rights, always include our opinion. Your Aleksandar Silic, LL.M you will find the detailed reasoning of the District Court.

News

Leases: No Arbitrary Eviction By The Landlord

Posted on

The unauthorized evacuation a no-fault liability for damages of the tenant threatens the landlord. If a tenancy which is ever finished, is the lessee pursuant to 546 BGB shall specify out the leased property to the landlord. The landlord has a claim against the tenant on clearance and release of the leased property. (Source: Boy Scouts). Unfortunately it happens time and again that a tenant not voluntarily releases the leased property upon the termination of the lease. The question then is whether and how the landlord can enforce its expressly enshrined repossessions and issuing claim against the tenant. If the tenant does not voluntarily gives the leased property, there is only one legitimate way to enforce the repossessions – and publishing claim of the lessor perspective author working particularly in the law of tenancy in the LK Verden: it must first imposed a corresponding eviction. If bound by a judgment or a settlement at the end of the legal proceedings of the tenant the rent thing is to clean, but always still does not voluntarily comply with this obligation, is to apply for the eviction of the bailiff.

The eviction is the subject, by the costs of the Court and any m.j. determine value, usually after the annual rents to measure in the tenancy law ( 41 para 2 GKG). For the eviction, the bailiff about requests also an advance in the amount of evacuation costs. So considerable costs be on the landlord, if the lessee does not voluntarily publishes the leased property. Occasionally landlords on the idea to save these costs.

You waive an eviction and spaces the apartment itself, without having obtained a corresponding judgment. This is extremely dangerous for the landlord from a legal perspective, because it raises claims for damages of the lessee against the owner. The lessor shall be liable here regardless ( 231 BGB). It is so not even on whether the landlord may believed or E.g.