UStG Small

An option to the sales tax is often in issuing credit, a small business owner, there is uncertainty about whether separately stated sales tax within the framework of a grant of credit to a small business owner the option of the small entrepreneur gem. 19 UStG is exercised. Example case: A doctor agrees to do so, in the waiting room of his practice to set up TVs (mostly leased) a customer, on the advertising for the products of this principal is sent in addition to General information about the practice and news. The doctor receives a remuneration which he falls due to the low sales UStG under the small businesses scheme of section 19 for this performance. Billed by means of granting of credit by the purchaser (recipient). Here arises the question whether the VAT option this can be exercised, that the contracting authority issuing the credit under separate disclosure of sales tax. Solution: The right of option in a small contractor pursuant to section 19 para 2 UStG can not by the Beneficiaries are exercised separately designated VAT in a credit. Refraining from the non-collection of sales tax in the framework of article 19 paragraph 2 UStG is a reception poor Declaration of intent of the small entrepreneur to the tax office. The waiver may be implied, for example, by submitting a pre-registration or annual tax returns. However, the separate presentation of VAT invoices is not sufficient (cf. FG Baden Wurtenmberg, judgment of 26.07.1991, case 12 V 3/91, EFG 1992, 46, rough/Durr guardian, UStG-come on, 19 RZ. 63/64). Recipient of an invoice is the beneficiary and not the IRS. Thus the separate presentation of USt in a credit not enough to exercise the option of the small entrepreneur, because recipients of credit is also not the IRS. Gem. 14 UStG N.f.. entrepreneurs must be the credit evaluator controller. The exhibition of a credit must be still agreed. Whether VAT should be shown separately, can, however, must be not, be governed by the agreement. A scheme makes sense, especially since the issuing company often don’t know if the party falls under the small businesses scheme. Is VAT incorrectly separately, so the consequences of 14c enter par. 2 UStG. The small business owner owes the incorrect assigned tax. He wants to avoid this, disagree with the small entrepreneur of credit ( 14 para 2 sentence 4 UStG). The contradiction causes that the credit will lose their effect as a Bill. With regard to the consequences of 14c para 2 UStG is to distinguish whether the separate card through the credit issuer with the credit recipient was agreed. The separate statement was agreed, the credit recipient has to be attributable to this. Alone with the contradiction the result of 14 c para 2 UStG is not eliminated. Rather the other prerequisites of 14 c must be para 2 UStG, i.e. the credit recipient must pay for the tax and may apply for the adjustment to the tax office. The tax is It only refunded if the risk of tax revenue has been removed. This is the case, if the financial Office of the credit recipient receives the news of the financial Office of the issuer of the credit, the credit issuer has asserted no deduction from the invoice or the claimed input tax has paid back. The card was not agreed, so this is also not attributable to the credit recipient, causes the opposition gem. 14 para 2 sentence 4 UStG that the effect of the Bill from the point of view of 14 c immediately eliminates UStG. Ingo Heuel (lawyer, accountant, lawyer specializing in tax law) in Bergisch Gladbach (Cologne area)

Gunther Werner Pettenkoferstrasse

Following a recital of reasonableness in accordance with 1578 b BGB, the first instance of the divorced spouse approved to a post-divorce maintenance need in monthly volume of 3195 as reasonable life needs until the year 2014. At the end of this period, the maintenance requirement is set to 2200. Typical cost of living, the claim included the cost for a riding horse, so that the dependants could continue their hobby of riding operated at times of marriage. The controversial maintenance amount was confirmed by the Federal Court of Justice, taking into account the matrimonial living conditions. Due to her marriage-related task of work as secretaries were the spouse through marriage unaufholbare disadvantages in their professional development and retirement has been added to.

Justify the lasting nature of these disadvantages in the context of an equity weighing in accordance with 1578 b BGB both the valid until 2014 maintenance supplies amounting to 3195 as also the later, unlimited valid needs of 2200 per month. In particular would have to find two children and the outstanding assets and income of the spouses in the statutory reasonableness consideration an appropriate consideration about thirty-year marriage period, education. Continue to the spouse due to the long duration of the marriage had a worthy trust in common, now be nonrepresentational through divorce, life planning with their spouses, which she have sought no their own retirement. This circumstance was to take into account a permanent maintenance claim. Described the Bundesgerichtshof judgment makes very clear that through the post-divorce support compensation of justified interests of the former spouses to come, their reality of life taken into account.

In this context, the equity weighing acts as a corrective, which allows the Court to incorporate the individual circumstances of the former spouse in extent and limitation of the maintenance service after 1578 b BGB. Great wealth, a long marriage life and marriage handicaps on the side of keep desire ends maintenance can be in the individual case reasonable, which is determined, amounts much higher than in the usual rate procedure. In any case representation by an experienced lawyer is all parties involved in the maintenance assessment recommended, which expresses their individual interests through a goal-oriented reasoning. The team of Munich law firm Dittenheber & Werner is available for current information about family law and a professional legal advice at any time. Press contact Dittenheber & Werner lawyers law firm contact person: Gunther Werner Pettenkoferstrasse 44 80336 Munich Tel.: 0 89 – 54 34 48 30 fax: 0 89 – 54 34 48 33 E: mail: Homepage: