Monday, November 29, 2010

Blood Stool Edmonton Doctor

Undiscovered company splits

it is a bit surprising how often I am confronted with problems in operating divisions. Last Friday, comes a new Mandant und schildert mir fast nebenbei dieses: Er sei Mitgesellschafter einer GmbH. Die GmbH habe vor einigen Jahren Anlagevermögen an die Gesellschafter verkauft, die dieses Anlagevermögen an die GmbH zurückvermietet hätten. Dazu habe man eine GbR gegründet. Zwei Jahre später sei das Anlagevermögen wieder an die GmbH zurückverkauft und die GbR aufgelöst worden. Auf den ersten Blick kommt dieser Fall recht unauffällig daher, so dass man nicht gleich bemerkt, welche Risiken hier bestehen.

Eine Betriebsaufspaltung ist ein rein steuerliches Konstrukt (1). Es wird gewissermaßen eine Beteiligungskette konstruiert. Wenn wesentliche Wirtschaftsgüter (z.B. Grundstücke, Patente, Maschinen etc.), to one or several shareholders are to be used by the own GmbH, a commercial tax service is fictitious. Without this point any further, I should point out that must be met as a condition of the so-called factual and personal links. For this trade or business includes not only those assets, but also the participation of the shareholder on its Inc. The use by the LLC may paid for, by so Miet-/Pachtvertrag, or not done. Participation chain now looks like this: Manager - Commercial operation as a "daughter" (holding company) - GmbH as a "granddaughter" (Operating Company). Mind you, this investment chain is not social, but purely fiscal Art

If this holding chain is broken, must be taxed at all levels at once all the hidden reserves. The tax office does then, as if a sale of the LLC interest and all other assets EXIST. This result is of course a fiasco for all involved, probably for the accountant. And there are many choices to end up like the splitting operation. The holding company is dissolved, significant assets are sold or rented, successions occur daily organizer As you can see, the operating division to be resolved even by accident. It's just not a stable corporate relationship, but a purely tax structure. Particularly problematic are the undiscovered natural operating divisions or those that are only uncovered by the audit. Then it's like the fog bank on the highway. You can see the traffic jam, it's too late.

to the input case, you would think now, because of the short existence of the company split the accumulation of hidden reserves should not have been as high. But this is unfortunately believed the law passed. Initially, the company split the limited companies migrate to the original cost of the shareholders in the business property ownership society (2), eg for 25,000 euros. When the company split ends - and if only a second later - the GmbH shares but are taken at market value (3).

is now, of course, the question of what to do about it. First of course, one should avoid the splitting operation. This means your eyes on the release of its own assets to the GmbH with its own way, are also meant the assets that are only in possession, such as rented storage bins. When a split operation already exists, you should take civil action to prevent accidental resolution. On unspectacular is finally the splitting operation, which was never recovered. Here, it is possible to avoid the audit and continues to sleep peacefully.


(1) § 15 para 1 sentence 1 No. 2, sentence 1 sentence 1 ITA (2) § 6 § 1 point 5, point b of (3) § 6 paragraph 1 point 4 ITA

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Creatively Wrapping Towels

Tax Court has Porsche Turbo drivers in their place - and shows excellent prospects for all company car drivers auf

Germany, regarding the deductibility of car expenses still Eldorado. Unlike in other countries, there are no fixed limits. However, if revenues and costs in a car even want to glaring disparity that also plays in Germany, the tax office no longer.

recently decided case: The owner of a rental company with a few apartments and commercial space had bought in 2001, a Porsche Turbo for net 230 000 mark and the gross purchase price by credit over 275 000 Mark financed. In 2001, the entrepreneur normal amortization of EUR 46 000 Mark, impairment in the same amount again, various vehicle costs and more Mark out 18 000 Interest expense for the Porsche-credit claims. That was the Tax Court too much. The fact that someone spends 36 percent of its revenue for the maintenance of his car, was not apparent to the financial judges somehow. They did so, depreciation, rather than on the basis of 70 000 marks - as desired - on the basis of 230 000.

The judicial statements to the log book of interest to all entrepreneurs: The entries of the Porsche drivers were the Court to spongy. This is for example: "Appointment Sun Studio", "date because of facility," "due date equipment", etc. All the mentioned Judges' general and vague and interchangeable ". So if you get through with a logbook at the tax office you must make some more precise information, for example: ". Date Otto Meier GmbH in Stuttgart wg contract for 1000 XY"

The ruling also contains approaches to Luxury Cars durchzubekommen: What bothered the judge in the Porsche driver with the consumptive enterprises, mainly, was the mismatch between revenues and costs. Also that the nature of the business, such a representation effort with a company car was not necessary. That should mean that, conversely, that umsatz- und ertragsstarken Unternehmen auch kostspielige Autos als Geschäftswagen zugestanden werden.

Grundsätzlich problematisch: PS-starke Sportwagen, da diese nach Ansicht der Richter "nach der Anschauung breitester Bevölkerungskreise in sehr starke Maße die private Lebenssphäre berühren". Mit einer Limousine, auch wenn sie sehr teuer ist, scheinen Finanzrichter also weniger Probleme zu haben. (FG Nürnberg, 28. 2. 2008, DStRE, 2008, S. 1116)

Gc Mi Paste Plus And Thyroid Disease

in old cars the company car tax

If you use your business car mainly operational, and also lead no logbook, tax on the private use after the standard one-percent rule. " And the beats in a used car in the same amount charge as a new car.

countermeasure 1: taxed no more than the annual cost of your car. This scheme is called in jargon "cost ceiling". To benefit from these mechanisms, make the user previously written off cars, which are mainly used operationally. (BMF letter dated 21/01/2002, para 14; BStBl 2002 I 148 )

example Meier entrepreneur drives a Mercedes S-Class (Year 2000) as a business car, which he has already written down to zero. New price at that time: 60 000 €. The total cost per year (gasoline, insurance, taxes and repairs) per year 6000 €. Then This is where the cost of capping and Meier must pay tax only 6000 € 7200 € instead of actually (12 x 1% of 60 000 €) per year as a withdrawal. As a result, he can certainly sell anything.

countermeasure 2: If you use your car is mostly private, the one-percent rule since 2006 no longer to bear. You may then nevertheless, according to administrative instruction make all car costs as an operating expense, but I have (only) in the amount of the private use of extraction. This actually a "penalty" intended restriction of one-percent rule in this case is a gift, you should use. (BMF 07:07:06; DStR 2006.1280)

Example: If entrepreneurs Meier (so) the car made only 40 percent utilized, he's just 40 percent of the total cost of 6000 Euro, € 2400 including claims. This is curiously more than operating expenses deduction at 60 percent business use in connection with the one-percent rule.


additional control when using a company car for other types of income
you should not give the tax office that you take your business car, for example, inspection trips to far-away rental properties. Although you can deduct mileage for the rental income, in exactly the same height increases but the monetary benefit that you must pay tax for private use. Since it is better to omit such trips in the same tax return.

Dry Nipples Before Period

Vorsicht bei PDF- oder Fax-Rechnungen

Immer öfter bekommt man Rechnungen als PDF-Datei zugemailt. Hierzu sollten Sie wissen: Elektronisch versandte Rechnungen berechtigen nur unter ganz engen Voraussetzungen zum Vorsteuerabzug. Unter anderem müssen die Rechnungen nach einem komplizierten Verfahren digital signiert werden. (§14 Abs. 3 UStG) Das ist jedoch bei einer normalen PDF-Datei nicht der Fall.

Unser Tipp: Bestehen Sie stets auf einer Papierrechnung. Denn jeder Unternehmer ist verpflichtet, Rechnungen auszustellen, die zum Vorsteuerabzug berechtigen.

Und wenn die pdf-Rechnung korrekt elektronisch signiert ist? Dann ist das im Prinzip OK. Aber Hand auf's Herz: Sind Sie wirklich EDV-Freak genug, um einem Betriebsprüfer in three years prove that a statement has been signed electronically stored digitally? So better yet paper.

A printed pdf invoice but looks just like a paper bill? If this comes from the window cleaner or the beverage market around the corner - perhaps. But accounts of large companies see original paper guarantees different than if you print the pdf itself.

How is that with bills by fax? The tax office is playing with only if the original account of age-old standard fax to age-old standard fax will be faxed. (25/05/1992 BMF). Computer faxes are seit 2004 als Rechnung ungültig. Verwendet z.B. der Absender und/oder der Empfänger ein Computer-Fax oder läuft das Fax in Ihrer Firma auf einem Fax-Server ein, ist Essig mit dem Vorsteuerabzug. Denn den Vorsteuerabzug gibt es auch hier nur mit "qualifizierter elektronischer Signatur". (A 184a Abs. 5 UStR; BMF 29.01.2004; Rz. 23/24).

Pregnancy Covered In Aflac Plans

Wie bilanziert man eine Leasing-Sonderzahlung?

Angenommen, Sie berkommen ein neues Leasingauto und müssen 9000 Euro netto plus Mehrwertsteuer Leasingsonderzahlung bezahlen. Wie müssen Sie das das steuerlich handhaben? Bei der Umsatzsteuer und in der Bilanz?
Antwort:
Die von der Leasinggesellschaft auf die Sonderzahlung any sales tax charged, you can immediately deduct the delivery month of the car (on a previous payment even earlier) in your VAT return as a pilot.
the net amount of 9000 €, but you can not sell immediately. (Even if car salesmen say that sometimes.) The immediate deduction is only for revenue-surplus account and they can only self-employed and small business use.
you as the summarizing contrast to the leasing special payment split to the months of the lease - in your case 36 months. To account for every month so 250 euros. When delivered in July 2009 set in 2009 so 6 / 36 the special payment as a business expense from that is 1500 €. At the level of the rest (9000 less 1500 €) you are in the balance sheet a "prepaid expenses" (ARAP). In the years 2010 and 2011 you're getting € 3,000 each from that post in the overhead and 2012, 1,500 euros last time.
it worth a leasing special payment at all?

My advice: A lease is worth special payment for non-tax accounting Zierer. The only meaning can be that the leasing company reduced its interest rate advantage because the monthly payments much faster than the 250 € in our example (eg around 280 €). Only worth a Special payment. is

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

How Often Should You See A Hygienist

re disagreement in BFH

to transfer of assets

A common problem in corporate transactions is then, if not all assets are to be transferred. For example, a potential corporate buyers only interested in the actual business and will not or can not accept as a business premises. Such constraints arise not only in business sales. You can also occur in conversions from donations within families from parents to children or for other transactions.

Now it is unfortunately not so easy to transfer the relevant assets from the company tax-free out. It threatens the taxation of capital gains without a cash inflow would be available from which the tax could then be paid.

During a transfer of individual assets of a corporation out to third parties with an exception to the income tax out, it looks at individual companies and partnerships, fortunately, is different.

A tax-neutral Transfer to the private assets of the company or shareholder is even the case of corporations (PersG) is not possible, but at least the design possibilities of § 6 paragraph 5 of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, individual assets are transferred to another company assets. The tax will of course get entangled.

The provision is in the details certainly very complex, but up to a question, everything seems to be substantially resolved. This has a question, however, it in itself. It is about whether an asset may be transferred to a parallel society, ie to a person identical sister company.

The said clause is one of the cases of tax-neutral transfer to one. The tax-neutral transfer to a sister company is not listed unfortunately. This would actually come to the conclusion that such a transfer taxes must rise. It is in this sense, the BFH with Judgement of 25.11.2009 has - IR 72/08 decided. The case described here is extremely complex and I do not recommend more to read there. The applicant company had restructured a business selling a business group in several steps. Shortly before the sale of a PersG land had been transferred to a sister-PersG. The FA wanted tax course.
 
Man weiß leider nichts über die Hintergründe des Falls. Hatten die Gesellschafter in Zeitnot gehandelt? Oder hatten die Berater geschlampt? Bei sorgsamer und vorausschauender Vorgehensweise hätte man die Grundstücke mit einer adäquaten Gestaltung problemlos heraus transferieren können. Hier aber war der zeitliche Abstand mit zwei Monaten so kurz, dass auch noch die Frage der Gesamtplanrechtsprechung relevant wurde.
 
Ohne auf den letzteren Aspekt eingehen zu wollen, hat der 1. Senat des BFH den Fall im Sinne des FA durchgewinkt. Nun aber kommt der 4. Senat des BFH ins Spiel. Mit Beschluss vom 15.4.2010 - IV B 105/09 kam er genau zum gegenteiligen Ergebnis. Er meint, dass die PersG Steuerrechtssubjekt für the type of income (eg from trade) and their allocation is. The object of taxation but the shareholders were himself and not society. It should always apply the so-called principle of transparency.

For tax law laity: the transparency principle states that a PersG tax transparent, so "transparent" and the income is attributable to the shareholders directly and immediately. This would therefore only a non-taxable transfer and no transfer. This evaluation of the 4th Senate is in my opinion, absolutely convincing.


The match for the correct interpretation of tax legislation is once again fully open. A clarification but is now in sight. The decision of the 4th Senate was only one of a suspension decision. The actual procedure is pending. If the 4th Senate will remain in this proceeding in his opinion, he will have to call the Great Senate, which will have the final word.