Search

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article in the journal for the entire criminal law science discusses the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the reopening of criminal proceedings. It is discussed how the ne bis in idem principle has been historically viewed and how it has developed in the German legal system. The importance of legal peace and the effects on the reopening of criminal proceedings are highlighted. It also delves into the discussions in the Parliamentary Council regarding Article 103 (3) of the Basic Law. The concluding remarks emphasize the importance of balancing formal legal certainty and substantive justice in the reopening of criminal proceedings. It is recommended not to completely weaken the finality of judgments and to consider the historical development of the ne bis in idem principle. [Extracted from the article]

The Federal Constitutional Court declared § 362 No. 5 StPO unconstitutional on October 31, 2023. The debate focused on constitutional law issues and criminal law problems. The article shows why the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court can be supported from the perspective of criminal law science. The regulation allowed for the reopening of a criminal proceeding to the detriment of the acquitted person in case of new evidence. Criminological and criminalistic aspects have been neglected so far. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses new requirements for the transmission of information by intelligence services for law enforcement and protection of legal interests. A crime can be considered particularly serious if it is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of over five years. The transmission of personal data to public authorities is possible under certain conditions. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 17, 2024 and the constitutional complaint against the Hessian Constitution Protection Act are mentioned. Criticism is expressed regarding the ambiguity of the legal regulations and the lack of proportionality in data transmission. It is emphasized that a revision of the laws is necessary to meet constitutional requirements. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Plaintiff S99/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483 was a decision of the Australian Federal Court concerning a woman (referred to in the decision as "Plaintiff S99") who had been recognised as a refugee in the Republic of Nauru, having been transferred there by Australia under an offshore processing agreement. The decision in Plaintiff S99 established an important precedent that many refugees and asylum-seekers in Australia's offshore processing centres on Manus and Nauru, including children with severe health problems, subsequently relied upon to be transferred to Australia for critical medical care. Drawing on the recent turn towards trauma-informed practice across other areas of law and policy, we ask: what does this mean for refugees, and, more specifically, what does this mean for judgment writing in refugee law? We use our rewrite of Plaintiff S99 to highlight aspects of the decision and its legacy that continue to silence and erase the experiences of refugees, especially refugee women, and frequently contribute to compounding their trauma. Our contribution calls for a reorientation towards "do no harm" principles, which lie at the heart of trauma and violence-informed practice. In particular, our approach to rewriting S99 aims at foregrounding dignity and safety, promoting respect for physical and mental health, and centring the voice, experience, and longer-term protection needs of refugees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Rechtswissenschaft (Baden-Baden) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Stiftungswesen is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

American legal interpretation has taken an empirical turn. Courts and scholars use corpus linguistics, survey experiments, and machine learning to clarify meanings of legal texts. We introduce these developments in "issue-level interpretation," concerning interpretive theories' application to legal language. Empirical methods also inform "meta-interpretive" debate: Which interpretive theory do interpreters use; which have they used; and which should they use? We demonstrate the relevance of machine learning to these meta-interpretive debates with insights provided by a word embedding that we trained on a corpus of over 1.3 million U.S. federal court decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study that examines the interpretive theories used by judges in U.S. Federal Court decisions. The study analyzes how the usage of theory-related words has changed over time using word embedding methods from natural language processing (NLP). It explores the benefits and limitations of static and contextualized embeddings in NLP research and discusses the challenges of measuring "ordinary" language using NLP methods. The article suggests that related fields like corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, and machine learning can provide valuable insights for this type of research. The authors also mention the connections between their work and studies on framing, agenda-setting, and media-based biases, and propose meta-interpretative questions about judicial language. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides an overview of the concept of "good cause" under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL). It explains the different categories of good cause, including definitional, per se, and judicially recognized. The article emphasizes that determining good cause requires a fact-intensive analysis and considers the totality of the parties' dealings. It also discusses the importance of essential, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory requirements in establishing good cause. The article further explores the application of the WFDL in cases involving grantors and dealers, including the identification of similarly situated dealers and the importance of consistency in treatment. It also covers per se good cause, such as failure to pay and insolvency, as well as judicially created good cause, such as systemic changes and market withdrawals. The article concludes by highlighting the complexity of determining good cause and the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Stiftungswesen is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Europarecht (05312485) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the implications of input tax deduction from development costs, particularly concerning the value-added tax treatment of infrastructure development projects and the transfer of these developments to municipalities or local authorities. It explores various legal cases, including decisions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH), highlighting the evolving understanding of VAT treatment in such scenarios.

Constitutional accountability for police shootings is imposed in part through civil rights lawsuits alleging Fourth Amendment violations, but little is known about how judges evaluate these claims. I introduce original data on all federal circuit court decisions resolving Fourth Amendment excessive force claims in police shooting cases over three decades. The quasi‐random assignment of a majority‐Republican panel substantially increases the probability of circuit courts finding a police shooting to be constitutional. Capturing law's influence by mapping case facts to the three‐part analytical framework delineated by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, I find that active resistance and threat immediacy are associated with increases in the probability of finding police shootings to be constitutional, but crime severity is not systematically associated with outcomes. In addition, there is evidence that law conditions the effect of politics, with increases in latent Fourth Amendment reasonableness narrowing the partisan outcome gap in constitutional assessments. The quasi‐random assignment of a Black judge does not impact outcomes. The results have important implications for police oversight and longstanding debates in judicial politics over the prevalence of panel effects and the extent to which law influences decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Planning for Tomorrow: Future City and Space" discusses the changes in spatial planning in the context of different interests, data, and political processes. It is emphasized that urban development policy often gives in to national and international capital interests despite the mandate for a just and green city. The importance of scientific data for political decisions is highlighted, especially in light of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the Climate Protection Act. The article also addresses the active involvement of private investors in planning processes and the importance of innovations through societal engagement. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Class actions require class representation. In class actions, plaintiffs litigate not only on their own behalf but “on behalf of all others similarly situated.” For almost fifty years, federal courts have routinely exercised their inherent equitable authority to award modest compensation to deserving class representatives who help recover common funds benefiting the plaintiff class. These discretionary “incentive awards” are generally intended to compensate class representatives for shouldering certain costs and risks—which are not borne by absent class members—during the pendency of class litigation. The ubiquity of permitting class action incentive awards ended in 2020. In an extraordinary ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that incentive awards are per se unlawful under late nineteenth-century Supreme Court precedent. This holding has ignited a new controversy in the federal courts with far-reaching implications for the future of class actions. Much of the existing legal scholarship on incentive awards analyzes policy rationales, quantitative trends, and legal standards involving the questions of “When?” and “How much?” to compensate class representatives. Only recently have scholars turned their attention to the more foundational question of whether federal courts have a sound basis to allocate incentive awards to class representatives under any circumstances. This Note weighs in on that debate by revisiting the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision to categorically ban incentive awards More importantly, this Note looks to the future and confronts the reality that other federal circuit courts or the Supreme Court could eventually adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s position on incentive awards. Facing that unsettling prospect, this Note presents three proposals—one for policymakers and two for plaintiffside class action practitioners—that could save the equitable tradition of compensating class representatives and reinforce the viability of the class action device itself [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges taxpayers face in proving the excessiveness of their assessments in tax appeals, particularly in default assessment cases under s 167 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). Topics discussed include the burden of proof in tax appeals, the divergence of opinion regarding the "all or nothing" approach to discharging the burden of proof, and the practical implications of recent Federal Court decisions on this matter.

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The document discusses a legal case involving Qantas Airways Ltd and the Transport Workers' Union in Australia. The case revolves around the outsourcing of ground handling operations by Qantas, leading to redundancies and allegations of adverse action by the TWU. The High Court of Australia upheld the decision that Qantas contravened the Fair Work Act by preventing employees from exercising future workplace rights, even if those rights were not presently held. The case highlights the complexities of protecting workplace rights and the challenges faced by employees and unions in collective bargaining processes. [Extracted from the article]

The document discusses a case in Australia where a union sought to engage in collective bargaining with an employer through a 'majority support determination' under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer refused entry to the union official seeking support for the determination, leading to a legal dispute. The Full Court of the Federal Court ultimately upheld the union's appeal, emphasizing the right of entry for discussions as a crucial aspect of the collective bargaining process. The decision highlights the importance of unions' ability to engage with workers and seek their support in organizing efforts. [Extracted from the article]

The document discusses a legal case in Germany where the appointment of a works council chairperson as a data protection officer was revoked due to conflicts of interest. The Federal Labour Court ruled that the roles of data protection officer and works council chairperson are incompatible, justifying the revocation. The decision was based on provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Federal Data Protection Act. The Court also referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the dismissal of a data protection officer and conflict of interest issues. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)