reduce taxable income by up to 64.9 percent of the investment amount. Atypical silent participation in a nursing home with sheltered housing as a private placement. The distributions are tax free, because the object in a redevelopment area. Annual tax-free payment of up to 7% already from 2009 about 15% additional payout after 7 years from the liquidity reserve return of principal after 7 years of 100% initial negative tax result for 2009 to 68.7% based on the nominal amount of so-called available in closed-end funds have been in recent years after each incumbent Finance Ministers undermined. Because such funds often were of dubious quality and the tax benefits were offset by excessive soft costs often again, we deem this not wrong. The quality of the investment should be always at the forefront of an investment decision.

If then additionally possibilities of the tax savings are given, this is a good argument. However, atypical silent partnerships are a way to claim high advertising costs in the year of investment. This currently, the BTW real estate company tells that the establishment Finance Office has again recognized the advertising costs in full this year. This means that the investors could reduce your taxable income by up to 64.9% of the investment amount. Currently, the company offers a share in a health care facility in Thuringia, Germany. For the proposed nursing home, a long waiting list is already in the construction phase.

The existing homes have a load of over 98%.Because the building in a redevelopment area, the distributions of 7% per year for seven years are tax free. The withdrawal takes place after 7 years at their nominal value plus 15% excess profit distribution. If you are unsure how to proceed, check out Jim Donovan Goldman. More information to the for this offer, see or under social real estate. Since 2003, the advertising costs have been regularly recognized by the IRS and we have every year agreed payments made on time. In 2011, the first investments are already taken back. After extension of the investments, we reject requests, “stresses Andreas Haufs, Managing Director of BTW real estate.

Oracle before European Court of Justice admits that the distinction between physical and online broadcast is irrelevant Luxembourg, March 6, 2012 Oracle today before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) a crucial legal position to retire: at the hearing, the software-multi admitted that the distinction between physical and online transmission of Oracle software is irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether Oracle software is subject to the point of exhaustion. There is no difference whether the software by disk or via the Internet will distributed; both ways lead to the same result, the Oracle lawyer is admitted. Chamber President Skouris Oracle threw affiliated misleading arguments”before. The ECJ negotiated today about the question of whether the trade with used Oracle software is even legitimate, when the distribution of software over the Internet is done. The Federal Supreme Court had referenced this question on 3rd February 2011 at the highest European Court for clarification. The Distinction between physical and online broadcasting is critical for a more central question of law: Oracle always claimed, Oracle software might be resold already therefore, because the risk of misuse at online metaphor software was especially large. Now the Oracle lawyer under persistent questioning of the President of the Chamber had to concede that a risk of abuse does not exist at all; “” who download Oracle software, could do so at all, stressed she and added: we trust our customers.

“The Court’s clever questions clearly showed how thoroughly the ECJ has dealt with this important issue”, stressed usedSoft Managing Director Peter Schneider after the hearing at the headquarters of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. “I am confident that the ECJ makes a decision which provides a solid legal basis for the software used trade.” Indeed a tendency was apparent from the questions of the Court, which suggests that the European Court of justice quite open-minded facing resale of software. usedSoft lawyer Andreas master Ernst of the renowned Munich law firm master Ernst lawyers had in his plea made it clear that computer programs are legal things. As such they should are traded used, if they are on the way of sale and to the unlimited use in the market. Physical and online broadcast were substantially equivalent”. The separation of different distribution channels be carried out artificially Oracle, to prevent the second-hand market. However, this is not compatible with the exhaustion principle binding in EU law. The decision of the European Court of Justice will be probably later in the year.

Then, the Federal Supreme Court on the basis of the European Court of Justice demanding is the final instance verdict. UsedSoft usedSoft was founded in 2003 and is a leading European supplier of used standard software. The buyers of usedSoft licenses are both companies such as Software dealer. Among the customers of usedSoft group are e.g. Edeka, Karstadt, Neckermann, REWE, a leading Club in the Football League and various savings banks. Also in German authorities increasingly used software is used: in addition to the city of Munich, the Federal Social Court in Kassel, the municipality Bad Salzuflen and the data centre Baden-Wurttemberg over 100 more communities put on usedSoft licenses.

Dittenheber & Werner from Munich inform the lawyers on the basis of a judgment of the Federal Court, single parents must work full-time if a support possibility for the child. This decision will benefit especially fathers, who no longer live in a permanent household with the mother. The regulation of claims of mother-to-child support must be considered so new. Inform the lawyers Christian Dittenheber & Gunther Werner in Munich about the background of the judgment. An increased burden on single parents is a divorced mother of a girl in the second grade worked on a half day basis and related maintenance 440,00 euros in addition every month from your ex-husband. It wanted to deepen–but as a result of the amended divorce law maintenance and filed an amendment lawsuit. The District Court of Grevenbroich and the OLG Dusseldorf rejected the claim of the ex-husband. Transition to a full-time job not in the interest of the child’s lower instances stressed that this would be a not verlangbare load on the nut.

This forced, in a full-time job would be to go and worry in addition as a single parent to the child. Here, a transition to a day job would not be in the interest of the child. The daughter had been already two years in a foster family housed before the mother again looked after the child. Children must be not cared for by the mother the judgments of the OLG Dusseldorf and of the District Court of Grevenbroich were however lifted by the family of Senate of the Federal Supreme Court. “The case was again redirected to the OLG Dusseldorf, as the OLG no radical individual individual circumstances” had led. The Karlsruhe judges thus saw no reason why the mother should take a full day job.

He argued that the support from mother is itself not mandatory in the afternoon. According to versions of the family Senate of the Federal Supreme Court there would be no justification, why the single mother of the child at a full-time job over compulsory burden”would be. This established the judges in Karlsruhe that a relevant statement could be taken not lump-sum, but each case should be considered individually. The single mother is now in the burden of proof, which is why this can be a full-time job. Fails the mother so you will demands to accept a full-time job and as much to work, as the ex-husband, which is subject to any duty of care. This can the demands of mother-to-child support composed new and need to be considered individually new. For more information on the ruling of the OLG Dusseldorf lawyers Dittenheber and Werner are available.

The lawyers inform Pach & Pach from Nuremberg on the 12.01. 2011 the Supreme Court concerning the permissibility was one in hindsight by the landlord made amendment of the incidental expenses accounting for premises (BGH VIII ZR 296/09). The Nuremberg firm Pach & Pach leasing specialists describe the foundations and implications of the ruling. The decision of the Federal Court of Justice was based on the revision sought of a tenant who contested the legality of a correction made by the landlord to his detriment on the service charge settlement for the year 2006. In all previous instances, his desire had already been rejected. The controversial situation is presented as follows: In July 2007, the defendant landlord had created an invoice for costs for the year 2006 from the credits of the tenant the amount of 185, 96 euros arose.

This settlement he brought the tenant agrees and they charged in August with the tenant account. In the aftermath of the landlord noticed that incorrectly heating oil amounting to 4613,32 euros not in the questionable costs calculation was incorporated. Then he created new, the Bill taking into account this circumstance which resulted in a tenant credit reduced to 138,08 euro for the year 2006. He charged the difference to the incorrectly calculated balances in December 2007 in turn with the tenant account, whereas the tenants moved to the BGH. The responsible among other things for the housing tenancy VIII. decided civil Senate of the Federal Supreme Court in the case in favor of the landlord. He ruled that it stands to BGB the landlord of housing on the basis of 556 para 3 sentence 2, to modify the service charge settlement within one year after the end of the billing cycle to the detriment of the lessee.

He would have this right even if on the basis of assumptions that turned out later as wrong, already an invoice was created and charged with the tenant account. That the landlord made a faulty clearing, justify no fault acknowledgement in turn, as a result, they would be legally binding. This decision of the BGH allows the landlord a subsequently successful, objectively justified correction of bills of costs within the annual period of 556 para 3 sentence 2 BGB. Is the period elapsed, also incorrectly created settlements become legally binding and may be changed only if the landlord has not represented the cause of change. Through the legal clarification on the reversibility of incidental expenses accounting, the Federal Supreme Court creates legal certainty for both landlord and tenant. Both parties of the contract now know at what point they to go out have the legally binding nature of a utility bill. Tenant or landlord feel unsure regarding the legal admissibility of a specific service charge settlement, is to advise them to consult specialist anwaltlich. The Nuremberg firm Pach & Pach leasing specialists are available anytime for this concern.

Also eliminated the hardship scheme regarding the unacceptability of cost increases in the future or the hardship test in the later following rental increase procedure is moved. Because the weighing scale is not aggravated, the lessee also given hardness reason before rent is protected. The delays incurred be dropped now, and the lessor receives substantially more planning security. With regular rent increases according to 558 BGB is provided to 15 percent in the future lowering the capping limit of 20. Auer Witte Thiel inform about regulations to Mietnomadentum the reform also sets measures to tackle the so-called Mietnomadentum even better.

Especially small landlords very benefit from these new regulations, explain Auer Witte Thiel. Courts are now obliged to process clearing things preferred. A new security arrangement can oblige the tenant for the fees incurred for long process, a Guarantee to provide and protect so the landlord before financial damage. For failure to comply with an emergency evacuation can be initiated. The so-called Berlin clearance is based on the new regulation”. The model means conducting a clearance without having the items in the apartment must be moved or stored. Still, the landlord and tenant Amendment Act treated the closure of gaps in the conversion of rental housing into condominiums. The workaround of to protect against captive layoffs for three years by the so-called Munich model”is now suppressed.

The Munich model went to the protection, in which the apartment prior to conversion into residential property purchased by a partnership could be terminated by a shareholder because of its own needs. On February 1, 2013, the Federal Council in the second round will deal with the decision of the German Bundestag to the landlord and tenant Amendment Act. Auer Witte Thiel respond to the main points and place under further information is available. About the law firm Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector.