type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 23.10.2008
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 280/30
 ROZHODNUTIE SPOLOČNÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 91/2008
 zo 4. júla 2008,
 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa príloha XXI (Štatistika) k Dohode o EHP
 SPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore zmenenú a doplnenú protokolom, ktorým sa upravuje Dohoda o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej len „dohoda“, a najmä na jej článok 98,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Príloha XXI k dohode bola zmenená a doplnená rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 74/2008 zo 6. júna 2008 (1).
 (2)
 Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 207/2008 z 5. marca 2008, ktorým sa prijímajú špecifikácie ad hoc modulu na rok 2009 o vstupe mladých ľudí na trh práce podľa nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 577/98 (2), sa má začleniť do dohody.
 (3)
 Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 212/2008 zo 7. marca 2008, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa príloha I k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 138/2004 o úhrnných účtoch pre poľnohospodárstvo v Spoločenstve (3), sa má začleniť do dohody,
 ROZHODOL TAKTO:
 Článok 1
 Príloha XXI k dohode sa mení a dopĺňa takto:
 1.
 Za bod 18ak [nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 102/2007] sa vkladá tento bod:
 „18al.
 32008 R 0207: nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 207/2008 z 5. marca 2008, ktorým sa prijímajú špecifikácie ad hoc modulu na rok 2009 o vstupe mladých ľudí na trh práce podľa nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 577/98 (Ú. v. EÚ L 62, 6.3.2008, s. 4).“
 2.
 Do bodu 24c [nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 138/2004] sa dopĺňa táto zarážka:
 „—
 32008 R 0212: nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 212/2008 zo 7. marca 2008 (Ú. v. EÚ L 65, 8.3.2008, s. 5).“
 Článok 2
 Znenie nariadení (ES) č. 207/2008 a (ES) č. 212/2008 v islandskom a nórskom jazyku, ktoré sa uverejnia v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie, je autentické.
 Článok 3
 Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť 5. júla 2008 pod podmienkou, že Spoločnému výboru EHP boli doručené všetky oznámenia podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody (4).
 Článok 4
 Toto rozhodnutie sa uverejní v oddiele EHP Úradného vestníka Európskej únie a v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie.
 V Bruseli 4. júla 2008
 Za Spoločný výbor EHP
 predseda
 J. N. V. knieža Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 257, 25.9.2008, s. 39.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ L 62, 6.3.2008, s. 4.
 (3) Ú. v. EÚ L 65, 8.3.2008, s. 5.
 (4) Ústavné požiadavky neboli oznámené.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the\n Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n August 2005\n\n Reference Number: 2005-30-126\n\n\n\n\nThis report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure\nreview process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been\n redacted from this document.\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nINSPECTOR GENERAL\n for TAX\n ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n August 17, 2005\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, SMALL BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED\n DIVISION\n\n\n FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the\n Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting (Audit # 200530006)\n\n\n This report presents the results of our review to evaluate whether the Internal Revenue\n Service (IRS) has an effective strategy to measure employment tax reporting\n compliance. Employment tax is paid to the Department of the Treasury from two\n primary sources, as payroll tax and as self-employment tax. Payroll taxes are primarily\n reported on the Employer\xe2\x80\x99s Quarterly Federal Tax Return (Form 941); self-employment\n tax is reported on the Self-Employment Tax (Schedule SE) attached to a U.S. Individual\n Income Tax Return (Form 1040).\n In summary, the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division has developed an\n extensive Employment Tax Strategy that addresses many facets of employment tax\n compliance. The SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s seven pronged approach includes Tip Income,\n Non-Filers, Workload Identification, Collection, Legislative Initiatives and Education, and\n Reporting Compliance.1 The SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s Strategy has placed emphasis on\n compliance by non-filers, who the SB/SE Division considers particularly egregious.\n However, the reporting compliance portion of the Strategy, while considering certain\n components, does not primarily focus on the reporting compliance of taxpayers that file\n Forms 941, which represent a significant portion of Federal revenues. Several items\n reported on Forms 941, such as wages, other compensation, and income tax withheld,\n are not addressed.\n\n\n\n 1\n Reporting compliance can be measured by comparing the tax reported by a taxpayer as opposed to what should be\n reported.\n\x0c 2\n\nThe IRS has recognized that underreporters account for the largest portion of the tax\ngap.2 The IRS has addressed employment tax underreporting by self-employed\ntaxpayers who file Forms 1040 with a Profit or Loss from Business (Schedule C) during\nits National Research Program (NRP).3 As a result of the NRP, the IRS now estimates\ntaxpayers with self-employment income underreport between $51 and $56 billion in\nemployment tax.\nAlthough the estimate is significant, revenue receipts from self-employed taxpayers\nrepresent a relatively small portion of employment tax revenue. Self-employed\ntaxpayers reported $41 billion dollars in self-employment tax in Fiscal Year 2004, while\nmore significantly, employers that filed Forms 941 for the same period reported over\n$664 billion in Social Security and Medicare tax. The amount increases to $1.4 trillion\nwhen the amount of Federal income tax withheld from employees is included.4 The tax\ngap estimate of $15 billion for employment taxes, which includes Forms 941, is from old\ndata. Approximately two-thirds of the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s revenue receipts are\nreported on Forms 941, yet the IRS has not evaluated the extent of tax underreporting\non these forms for at least 15 years.\nThe IRS currently has data that suggest the Forms 941 are not accurate. The IRS\xe2\x80\x99\nCombined Annual Wage Reporting (CAWR) program has data for all Forms 941 and all\nof the Wage and Tax Statements (Forms W-2) that have been filed. The IRS stated\nthere are 720,612 Forms 941 nationwide that do not balance with the Forms W-2 data\nfor Tax Year 2003. These inaccuracies could represent unpaid tax.\nThe IRS has been concerned about the tax gap and is currently increasing compliance\nresources to address the problem. In addition, the IRS acknowledges its estimate of the\n$66 billion to $71 billion tax gap for employment taxes, from both self-employed\ntaxpayers and those filing employment tax forms, is not accurate. This is because the\ntax gap data for taxpayers that file Forms 941, which reports the largest portion of\nemployment tax revenues, is from outdated data.\nWe recommended the Commissioner, SB/SE Division, develop methodologies within\nthe Employment Tax Strategy designed to evaluate the extent of underreporting by\nemployers. Consideration should be given to incorporating the Form 941 in its NRP\nthrough the examination process, or consider using the CAWR program to evaluate the\naccuracy of employment tax data reported on Form 941.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Commissioner, SB/SE Division, agreed with our\nfindings and is planning, as a component of the overall Employment Tax Strategy, to\ndevelop methodologies to evaluate the extent of employment tax underreporting.\nSpecifically, the SB/SE Division will work with the Office of Research, Analysis, and\nStatistics of Income (RAS) to analyze the results of the employment tax questions\nincluded in NRP Phase I; discuss with RAS the inclusion of appropriate questions\n\n2\n The tax gap includes nonfilers, underreporters of tax, and underpayers of tax.\n3\n The NRP was designed to measure individual taxpayer reporting compliance for Tax Year 2001.\n4\n Internal Revenue Service 2004 Data Book, Publication 55B.\n\x0c 3\n\nregarding Form 941 in the next NRP study; and use the CAWR program as a source of\nemployment tax examinations and incorporate the results of these examinations into\ntheir measures of reporting compliance. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft\nreport is included as Appendix IV.\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report\nrecommendation. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Curtis\nHagan, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate\nPrograms), at (202) 622-3837.\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\nBackground ............................................................................................... Page 1\nSignificant Work Has Been Done in Employment Tax\nCompliance ............................................................................................... Page 3\nMethodologies Are Needed to Enhance the Employment Tax Strategy.... Page 5\n\n Recommendation 1: .........................................................................Page 8\n\nAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology...................\xe2\x80\xa6.Page 10\nAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ....................................... Page 12\nAppendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ....................................................... Page 13\nAppendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report .................... Page 14\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n Employment tax is paid to the Department of the Treasury\nBackground\n from two primary sources, as payroll tax and as\n self-employment tax. Employers are required by law to\n withhold employment taxes from wages paid to their\n employees. Employment tax includes Federal income tax\n withholding and Social Security and Medicare taxes.\n Self-employed persons must pay self-employment tax on\n their net earnings from self-employment each year.\n The following is a list of forms used to file employment\n taxes, known as the Form 94X series:\n\n Form 941, Employer\xe2\x80\x99s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, is\n used to report Social Security and Medicare taxes as well as\n income tax withheld from wages, tips, sick pay, other\n compensation, and any advanced earned income credit.\n This is a quarterly return due the last day of the month\n following the end of the quarter. This form can be filed as a\n paper, electronic, magnetic tape, or telefile return.\n Form 940, Employer\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Federal Unemployment\n (FUTA) Tax Return, is used to report employers\xe2\x80\x99 share of\n unemployment contributions based on wages paid to\n employees. This is an annual return due on or before the\n last day of the month following the end of the calendar year.\n Form 943, Employer\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural\n Employees, is used to report wages paid to farm workers.\n This is an annual return due on or before the last day of the\n month following the end of the calendar year.\n Form 945, Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax,\n is used to report income tax withholding from non-payroll\n distributions or payments. This is an annual return due on\n or before the last day of the month following the end of the\n calendar year.\n Form CT-1, Employer\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax\n Return, is used to report employment taxes on wages paid to\n railroad employees. This is an annual return due on or\n before the last day of February following the end of the\n calendar year.\n Schedule SE, which is not part of the Form 94X series, is\n used to report self-employment tax on net earnings from\n self-employment from a farm or non-farm business. It is\n\n Page 1\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n filed with the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return\n (Form 1040).\n Social Security and Medicare taxes pay for benefits that\n workers and their families receive under the Federal\n Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). 1 Social Security taxes\n pay for benefits under the old age, survivors, and disability\n insurance part of the FICA. Medicare taxes pay for hospital\n benefits. Each employee contributes part of these taxes and\n the employer pays a matching amount. Self-employed\n taxpayers must also pay Social Security and Medicare taxes\n in the form of self-employment taxes.\n The programs funded by employment taxes provide\n essential benefits to many citizens. The importance of the\n programs will continue to grow as more citizens reach\n retirement age.\n Employment tax represents a significant portion of both\n Internal Revenue Service (IRS) receipts as well as an\n estimated significant portion of the tax gap.2\n Taxpayers filed over 30 million employment tax returns in\n Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.3 These accounted for the largest\n component of business tax returns filed and the second\n largest component of all returns filed after individual\n income tax returns. The number of these tax returns is\n expected to increase over 9 percent by the year 2015.4\n For FY 2004, over $664 billion was reported as FICA\n payroll taxes. Self-employed taxpayers reported over\n $41 billion in self-employment taxes for this same period.5\n This review was performed on the Specialty Programs,\n Employment Tax Program and the Campus6 Compliance\n Services, Campus Reporting Compliance, Document\n Matching program at the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 National Headquarters in\n\n 1\n Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 3301-3128 (1939).\n 2\n The tax gap includes nonfilers, underreporters of tax, and underpayers\n of tax.\n 3\n The 30 million returns are the Form 94X Series, IRS Data Book 2004,\n Publication 55B.\n 4\n Calendar Year Return Projections for the United States and IRS\n Campuses: 2004-2011, Document 6186 (Rev.12-2004).\n 5\n IRS Data Book 2004, Publication 55B.\n 6\n The data processing arm of the IRS. The campuses process paper and\n electronic submissions, correct errors, and forward data to the\n Computing Centers for analysis and posting to taxpayer accounts.\n Page 2\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n Washington, D.C, and the Ogden, Utah, IRS Campus during\n the period January through April 2005. The audit was\n conducted in accordance with Government Auditing\n Standards. Detailed information on our audit objective,\n scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major\n contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n The IRS Small Business/Self Employment (SB/SE)\nSignificant Work Has Been\n Division has addressed employment tax compliance by\nDone in Employment Tax\n including some self-employed taxpayers in the National\nCompliance\n Research Program (NRP)7 and by developing an\n employment tax strategy.\n Self-employed taxpayers\n\n Self-employed taxpayers file Form 1040 with Profit or Loss\n from Business (Schedule C), Supplemental Income and\n Loss (Schedule E), or Profit or Loss from Farming\n (Schedule F) to report their income and profits. They file\n Schedule SE to pay self-employment tax on their net\n earnings from self-employment.\n Over the course of 3 years, the IRS implemented the NRP\n by randomly selecting about 46,000 returns for review and\n examination. These audits were largely completed by the\n fall of 2004. To gather statistically valid data, the return\n selection process for the NRP included an overall sampling\n of high-income returns. This enabled IRS researchers to\n draw valid conclusions about important subcategories of\n taxpayers.\n For instance, slightly more than 6 percent of individual\n taxpayers filed Schedule C as sole proprietors in Tax Year\n (TY) 2001. These taxpayers reflect a wide range of\n economic activity. To draw valid conclusions on\n Schedule C filers, the NRP examined about 21,000\n individuals who filed a Schedule C, slightly less than\n 46 percent of the total sample.\n The IRS now estimates taxpayers who file self-employment\n tax returns contribute between $51 and $56 billion to the\n employment tax gap. As a result of the work completed on\n\n\n\n 7\n The NRP was designed to measure individual taxpayer reporting\n compliance for Tax Year 2001.\n Page 3\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n the NRP, the IRS believes it has an accurate picture of\n self-employed taxpayer compliance.\n Employment tax strategy\n Forms 941 were not in the plans for the NRP, but the IRS\n knew it needed to develop an employment tax strategy to\n administer an effective employment tax program. The\n SB/SE Division chartered a group of representatives to draft\n an SB/SE Division employment tax strategy that would\n guide the identification of critical issues and the selection of\n programs and initiatives to address reporting, filing, and\n payment noncompliance.\n The IRS employment tax strategy evolved over a period of\n years. There were at least 3 separate versions of the strategy\n issued by the SB/SE Division over a 2-year period.\n In a version dated February 24, 2004, the IRS weighted\n 13 areas of employment compliance by assigning a score.\n The higher the score, the more significant the effect on\n employment tax compliance and the tax gap. Scores were\n based on the number of taxpayers affected, the effect on the\n tax gap, the growth of the area, the geography or how much\n of the country was affected, the impact on resources, and the\n IRS mission. After the scores were assigned, the 13 areas of\n employment tax compliance were ranked.\n A more concise strategy was developed on December 15,\n 2004, to better focus resources on noncompliance and\n reducing the employment tax gap. There are seven\n categories in the strategy. They are Tip Income, Non-Filers,\n Reporting Compliance, Workload Identification, Collection,\n Legislative Initiatives, and Education. Non-Filer and\n noncompliance by filers was seen as particularly corrosive\n to the tax system and considered an area of emphasis.\n The reporting compliance portion of the employment tax\n strategy has two parts. The Employment Tax Examination\n Program (ETEP) and the 1120S8-Officer Compensation\n Compliance Initiative Project (CIP).\n The ETEP uses certain information returns filed by\n corporations to identify misclassified workers. Employers\n\n 8\n The Form 1120S is used by S corporations, which are granted special\n tax status as specified under the Internal Revenue Code.\n Page 4\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n need to classify workers as either employees or independent\n contractors to determine their employment tax liability.\n Employers do not pay employment taxes on compensation\n paid to independent contractors.\n The 1120S-Officer Compensation CIP determines whether\n officers who perform services for their S Corporations are\n being paid a salary, or if they are receiving distributions to\n avoid paying employment taxes.\n Consequently, the SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s reporting compliance\n strategy identifies businesses that should pay additional\n employment taxes. Some individuals are not properly\n classified as employees on business returns, and some\n 1120S Corporations fail to recognize a reasonable salary to\n the officer shareholders when they actively operate a\n business and perform services. This results in the officer\n shareholder paying little or no employment taxes.\n\n Tax data reported on employment tax series Forms 94X, as\nMethodologies Are Needed to\n mentioned in the background section of this report, have not\nEnhance the Employment Tax\n been evaluated for over 15 years. Approximately two-thirds\nStrategy\n of all revenue receipts are reported on the Forms 941. The\n items reported on the Forms 941 include Social Security tax,\n Medicare tax, and Federal income tax withholding and\n totaled nearly $1.4 trillion during FY 2004. However, the\n IRS does not know the current level of reporting\n compliance. There are currently no plans to include these\n returns in the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 NRP to measure reporting compliance.\n Contributing to this lack of information is the limited\n number of examinations the IRS conducts on these returns.\n The examination rate for employment tax returns is less than\n a tenth of one-percent, the lowest rate of any business tax\n return.9\n The current employment tax underreporting data for these\n returns is unreliable and has a significant adverse impact on\n developing an overall effective employment tax strategy.\n As previously mentioned, reporting compliance for\n individual taxpayers who are self-employed has been\n evaluated. While significant, these taxpayers only report\n $41 billion dollars in tax on their forms, contrasted with\n\n\n 9\n IRS Data Book 2004, Publication 55B.\n Page 5\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n $664 billion reported on Forms 94X. As illustrated in\n Figure 1, reporting compliance has not been measured for\n the largest portion of employment tax revenues.\n\n Figure 1: Business Tax Forms\n $664\n $700\n $600\n $500\n $400\n $300 Total Amount\n $200 Collected\n $15 $56\n $100 $41 Tax Gap\n $0 Estimate\n Form 94X Self-\n Series Employment\n Tax\n Amounts In\n Billions\n\n Source: IRS 2004 Data Book. The IRS\xe2\x80\x99 tax gap estimate for the\n Form 94X series which includes Medicare, Social Security, and\n Unemployment taxes is $15 billion. The estimate is over 15 years old.\n The tax gap estimate of $56 billion on self-employment taxes is a result\n of a recently completed NRP.\n\n While the President and Congress debate over fixing the\n Social Security system to ensure future recipients have\n benefits, the IRS does not know whether all Social Security\n taxes are being reported and paid.\n Potential methodologies to enhance the employment tax\n strategy\n The actions planned by the IRS to address employment tax\n reporting compliance, if carried out, will have a positive\n effect on reducing the tax gap. However, the IRS has\n existing data that can be used to address other areas of\n employment tax reporting compliance. The IRS can use\n both its Combined Annual Wage Reporting (CAWR)\n program and its Examination program to enhance its\n employment tax strategy and reduce the tax gap.\n The CAWR program helps the Social Security\n Administration (SSA) ensure all workers get credit for the\n wages they earn towards retirement benefits.\n\n Page 6\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n When employers file the Forms 941, they also file Wage\n and Tax Statements (Form W-2) for their employees.\n Ideally, the amounts on the Forms W-2 should match those\n reported on Forms 941.\n The SSA identifies employers who report more wages on\n the Forms 941 than what they report on the Forms W-2\n because of concerns over missing Forms W-2. If the\n Forms W-2 are missing, it could indicate workers are not\n getting credit for the wages they earned towards Social\n Security retirement benefits. The IRS\xe2\x80\x99 CAWR program\n contacts the employer to determine whether there are any\n missing Forms W-2.\n When employers report more wages on their Forms W-2\n than on Forms 941, there could be unreported and,\n therefore, unpaid tax. These are called IRS-CAWR cases.\n The IRS has recently decided to work these cases and the\n results show promise. The IRS does not examine many\n Forms 941, but when they do, the examinations produce tax\n revenue.\n Figure 2 illustrates when employment tax forms are\n reviewed the results are significant.\n Figure 2: Results of Employment Tax Forms When Reviewed\n\n IRS Function Year Returns Additional\n Reviewed Tax\n Assessed\n CAWR Tax Year 58,416 $905,249,357\n 2002\n\n EXAMINATION Fiscal 17,698 $422,264,000\n Year\n 2004\n\n\n Source: The Examination data were obtained from the IRS 2004 Data\n Book. The CAWR program data were obtained from the IRS\n SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s Campus Compliance Services, Campus Reporting\n Compliance, Document Matching function. The data were the latest\n available.\n\n The CAWR program reviewed TY 2002 Forms 941 and the\n IRS assessed over $900 million. When all types of\n\n Page 7\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n employment tax forms in the employment series were\n reviewed by Examination, they assessed over $400 million.\n Over $1 billion dollars of additional tax was assessed\n between the 2 IRS programs.\n The SB/SE Division Employment Tax Program is going to\n examine 8,000 returns originating from the CAWR program\n and over 100,000 CAWR returns will be reviewed by the\n campuses in FY 2005. According to IRS figures, there are\n 720,612 Forms 941 for TY 2003 nationwide that might owe\n tax.\n When the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 CAWR program and Examination function\n review employment tax forms, they discover significant\n inaccuracies. The use of these programs can provide the\n IRS with significant data on employment tax compliance\n and the tax gap. This data can be used to formulate a more\n focused employment tax strategy that addresses more\n significant areas of noncompliance.\n\n The IRS should continue to evaluate components of\n employment tax underreporting to obtain accurate measures\n of compliance. Better data will help the IRS identify\n noncompliant segments of the population and will enhance\n development of methodologies to address employment tax\n reporting compliance.\n\n Recommendation\n\n 1. We recommend the Commissioner, SB/SE Division,\n within the Employment Tax Strategy, develop\n methodologies designed to evaluate the extent of\n underreporting by employers. Consideration should\n be given to incorporating the Form 941 in the\n SB/SE Division\xe2\x80\x99s NRP program through the\n examination process, or using the CAWR program\n to evaluate the accuracy of employment tax data\n reported on Form 941.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: As a component of the overall\n Employment Tax Strategy, the SB/SE Division will develop\n methodologies to evaluate the extent of employment tax\n underreporting by working with the Office of Research,\n Analysis, and Statistics of Income (RAS) to analyze the\n results of the employment tax questions included in the\n Page 8\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n NRP Phase I. The SB/SE Division will also discuss with\n RAS the inclusion of appropriate questions regarding\n Form 941 in the next NRP Study. Phase II of the NRP will\n focus on flow-through entities and is scheduled to begin in\n FY 2006. The SB/SE Division will use the CAWR program\n as a source of employment tax examinations and incorporate\n the results of these examinations into its measures of\n reporting compliance.\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n Appendix I\n\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service\n(IRS) has an effective strategy to measure employment tax reporting compliance. To accomplish\nour objective, we:\n\n I. Assessed the significance of employment taxes.\n A. Determined what comprises employment taxes and obtained the latest IRS statistics\n on the number of employment tax returns filed and the respective dollar amounts\n reported.\n B. Determined the relevance of employment tax returns by comparing the volume filed\n and the tax reported to other business tax returns.\n C. Obtained and evaluated data from the IRS and other sources on an estimation of\n employment tax reporting noncompliance.\nII. Evaluated the employment tax compliance strategy and the goals the strategy is designed\n to achieve.\n A. Determined if the Small Business/Self Employed (SB/SE) Division has a strategy to\n deal with employment tax noncompliance. We determined the status of the strategy\n and the stage of development or implementation.\n B. Reviewed and evaluated the components and actions of the strategy to determine if\n they will adequately address employment tax noncompliance.\n C. Determined if the components and actions of the employment tax compliance strategy\n include incorporating the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 Combined Annual Wage Reporting program and\n inclusion in the National Research Program.1\n D. Determined how the strategy was developed and whether it addressed employment\n tax noncompliance and, if not, whether and how the IRS otherwise evaluated where\n the employment tax noncompliance exists.\n E. Determined if the strategy is consistent with other SB/SE Division and IRS\n compliance strategies.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The NRP was designed to measure individual taxpayer reporting compliance for Tax Year 2001.\n\n Page 10\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n F. Evaluated SB/SE Division plans for coordination and communication with other\n operating divisions and other compliance components to develop an overall IRS\n employment tax strategy that will achieve the highest possible rate of compliance.\nIII. Determined if the SB/SE Division has adequate plans for monitoring and measuring the\n employment tax strategy\xe2\x80\x99s progress and results.\n A. Determined and evaluated how the employment tax strategy will be measured and\n evaluated to reduce noncompliance.\n B. Reviewed other audits conducted by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax\n Administration or Government Accountability Office that addressed employment tax\n noncompliance and other issues. Determined if the recommendations were addressed\n and implemented.\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\x0c Additional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n Appendix II\n\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nCurtis Hagan, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Small Business and Corporate Programs)\nRichard J. Dagliolo, Director\nJohn J. Chiappino, Audit Manager\nKyle Bambrough, Lead Auditor\nDoug Barneck, Senior Auditor\nAnnette Bates, Senior Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n Appendix III\n\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nCommissioner, Large and Mid-Size Business Division SE:LM\nDeputy Commissioner, Large and Mid-Size Business Division SE:LM\nDeputy Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\nDirector, Quality Assurance and Performance Management SE:LM:Q\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M\nAudit Liaisons:\n Commissioner, Large and Mid-Size Business Division SE:LM\n Commissioner, Small Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n Appendix IV\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0cAdditional Work Is Needed to Determine the Extent of Employment Tax Underreporting\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

text:
 16.9.2006
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 224/43
 2006 m. liepos 7 d. Pirmosios instancijos teismo nutartis byloje Juchem ir kt. prieš Parlamentą ir Tarybą
 (Byla T-321/03) (1)
 („Ieškinys dėl žalos atlyginimo - Deliktinė atsakomybė - Prekyba kombinuotaisiais pašarais - Žalos tikrumas“)
 (2006/C 224/92)
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Šalys
 Ieškovės: Juchem GmbH (Eppelborn, Vokietija) ir 223 kitos ieškovės, kurių pavadinimai nurodyti nutarties priede, atstovaujamos advokatų D. Waelbroeck ir N. Rampal
 Atsakovai: Europos Parlamentas, atstovaujamas E. Waldherr ir M. Moore, ir Europos Sąjungos Taryba, atstovaujama iš pradžių M. Balta ir F. Ruggeri Laderchi, vėliau M. Balta ir Z. Kupčová
 Atsakovų pusėje į bylą įstojusios šalys: Vokietijos Federacinė Respublika, atstovaujama W.-D. Plessing ir M. Lumma, ir Europos Bendrijų Komisija, atstovaujama A. Bordes ir B. Doherty
 Dalykas
 Prašymas atlyginti žalą, kurią ieškovės tariamai patyrė dėl 2002 m. sausio 28 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos 2002/2/EB, iš dalies keičiančios Tarybos direktyvą 79/373/EEB dėl kombinuotųjų pašarų apyvartos ir panaikinančios Komisijos direktyvą 91/357/EEB (OL L 63, p. 23)
 Rezoliucinė dalis
 1.
 Atmesti ieškinį.
 2.
 Ieškovės bei Parlamentas ir Taryba padengia savo bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 3.
 Vokietijos Federacinė Respublika ir Komisija padengti savo bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 (1) OL C 275, 2003 11 15.


text:
 21.8.2017
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 277/52
 Tužba podnesena 29. lipnja 2017. – Karl Storz protiv EUIPO-a (3D)
 (Predmet T-413/17)
 (2017/C 277/75)
 Jezik postupka: engleski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG (Tuttlingen, Njemačka) (zastupnik: S. Gruber, odvjetnik)
 Tuženik: Ured Europske unije za intelektualno vlasništvo (EUIPO)
 Podaci o postupku pred EUIPO-om
 Predmetni sporni žig: međunarodna registracija figurativnog žiga u kojoj je naznačena Europska unija s verbalnim elementom „3D” – međunarodna registracija žiga u kojoj je naznačena Europska unija br. 1 272 627
 Pobijana odluka: odluka drugog žalbenog vijeća EUIPO-a od 11. travnja 2017. u predmetu R 1502/2016-2
 Tužbeni zahtjev
 Tužitelj od Općeg suda zahtijeva da:
 —
 poništi odluku drugog žalbenog vijeća Ureda Europske unije za intelektualno vlasništvo od 11. travnja 2017. u predmetu R 1502/2016-2 i registrira žig „3D”, međunarodna registracija žiga u kojoj je naznačena Europska unija br. 1 272 627, za sve proizvode obuhvaćene prijavom, uključujući i one na koje još uvijek utječe pobijana odluka;
 —
 naloži EUIPO-u snošenje troškova.
 Tužbeni razlozi
 —
 povreda članka 7. stavka 1. točke (b) u vezi s člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 207/2009;
 —
 povreda članka 7. stavka 1. točke (c) u vezi s člankom 7. stavkom 2. Uredbe br. 207/2009.


text:
Traductrice et interprète technique pour l'allemand et le français
 Traductrice et interprète assermentée + diplômée d'État pour l'allemand et le français
 Arlette FORSTMEIER | 0049 (0) 9621 78 87 52 0 | info@tradette.de
 Je m‘appelle Arlette FORSTMEIER et je suis traductrice et interprète diplômée et assermentée pour le français et l’allemand.
 Mon univers tourne autour de la traduction, l’interprétation et l’enseignement. C’est la raison pour laquelle le nom de mon site Internet « tradette » se compose du mot « traduction » et de mon prénom « Arlette » .
 En plus, je suis interrogatrice active dans les domaines des langues pour la Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie à Ratisbonne en Allemagne et membre de l’association allemande de traducteurs et interprètes (BDÜ).
 Mon bureau a déménagé en été 2018 à Kümmersbruck près d’Amberg en Bavière, Allemagne.
 Traductrice et interprète technique, assermentée + diplômée d'État
 pour l'allemand et le français (seconde langue anglais)
 Diplômée de l'Institut des langues étrangères et des civilisations étrangères (institut de formation de traducteurs-interprètes)
 « Institut für Fremdsprachen und Auslandskunde bei der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg »,
 Interrogatrice active dans les domaines des langues pour
 la Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie à Ratisbonne
 VOUS AVEZ DU MAL À TROUVER LES BONS MOTS ?
 Aucun problème. Contactez-moi sans engagement par téléphone au 0049 (0)9621 78 87 52 0, par mail à l'adresse info@tradette.de ou via le formulaire de contact.
 traductions générales et assermentées & traductions techniques et juridiques du français vers l’allemand et de l’allemand vers le français
 p. ex. des communiqués de presse, des manuels ou fichiers techniques, des fichiers de sécurité, des catalogues, des brochures, des graphiques, des documents de formation, des sites Internet, des revendications de brevet, des logiciels, des documents officiaux des contrats, des actes et diplômes
 traductions vers le français : ces traductions seront relues par un traducteur francophone
 Le métier du traducteur est très varié.
 Il ne s'agit pas de traduire un texte mot à mot sans tenir compte du contexte, mais plutôt d'analyser le contenu du texte, de le comprendre et de faire une traduction conforme au sens.
 C'est la raison pour laquelle un traducteur doit se limiter à des spécialités. Ces spécialités correspondent à la demande du marché ou sont nées selon les propres intérêts du traducteur.
 Les domaines suivants font partie de mes spécialités :
 Principalement l'électrotechnique, l'électronique, l'automobile et l'informatique: notamment la protection contre la foudre et les surtensions, l'équipement de protection, la protection incendie, les substances dangereuses, la technologie de la communication, la technique de commande/régulation/mesure, la technique des capteurs, l'électronique de puissance, la microélectronique, l'électronique dans la technique automobile, l'agriculture, la protection des données et la sécurité informatique (aussi RGPD, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS), les emballages et la logistique
 Notamment les contrats (contrat d'achat immobilier, contrats pour la reprise d'une entreprise, contrats de succession, etc.), les documents officiaux (actes de naissance, actes de mariage, actes de décès, actes de divorce, diplômes, etc.), les rapports et la correspondance commerciale
 Notamment le sport d'endurance et de force, les équipements sportifs et les vêtements de sport, les allergies et les intolérances, l'alimentation végétarienne etc., la cuisine, la cuisson et la pâtisserie
 Mes tarifs pour la traduction dépendent de la technicité du texte, la spécialisation, les langues source et cible, le volume de votre commande, le délai de livraison et le format. Je vous propose une facturation au mot ou à la ligne standard (55 caractères, espaces compris). La commande minimale s'élève à 40 € HT pour la clientèle hors Allemagne.
 interprétation de liaison, interprétation consécutive, interprétation simultanée de l’allemand vers le français et du français vers l‘allemand
 p. ex. des visites guidées, des formations, des présentations, des réunions, des dégustations, des négociations, des conclusions
 p. ex. sur des salons, dans la production, dans des salles blanches, au Tribunal, aux chantiers, chez le client, au cabinet du notaire, dans des fournils, dans des caves de Champagne
 Le métier d’interprète exige une certaine flexibilité. Même après une préparation de plusieurs jours, il est possible que, au moment de l’interprétation, les personnes présentes commencent à traiter des sujets inconnus très complexes ou racontent des blagues culturellement marquées. Lorsqu’on interprète, il ne suffit pas de « traduire » le texte mot à mot d’une langue à l’autre. Il est nécessaire d’analyser le contenu, de le comprendre et de réaliser une « traduction » conforme au sens global. Et parfois, il faut faire rire ou surprendre la personne cible. Il est possible de gagner un temps considérable quand l’interprète se limite à un certain nombre de domaines. Ces domaines de spécialité correspondent à la demande du marché ou sont nés des propres intérêts du traducteur ou de l’interprète
 Mes tarifs pour l'interprétation dépendent du projet, la spécialité, le lieu, les langues source et cible et vos souhaits supplémentaires. Je vous propose une facturation à l’heure ou à la journée. La commande minimale s'élève à 100 € HT pour la clientèle hors Allemagne.
 Vous avez besoin d'une offre personnalisée ? Envoyez-moi vos documents par mail à info@tradette.de
 ou contactez-moi au 0049 (0) 9621 78 87 52 0.
 Entreprise Nom Prénom Adresse Numéro de téléphone * Numéro de fax Adresse électronique * * Champs obligatoires
 Veuillez compléter les champs marqués en rouge.
 Vous acceptez, avec l'envoi du formulaire de contact, que vos coordonnées soient utilisées pour le traitement de votre demande.
 Vous trouverez d'autres détails et des informations relatives à votre droit de révocation dans la Politique de confidentialité.
 Ma devise : de connaissance sois avide, il n'y a pas de question stupide
 La traduction se réalise à l’écrit, et l’interprétation à l’oral. Théoriquement, un traducteur ne parle pas et un interprète n’écrit pas. Attention : en Allemagne, un interprète assermenté par un tribunal est par la même occasion assermenté et autorisé à traduire et authentifier des actes et d’autres documents juridiques. Dans la loi concernant les interprètes (Dolmetschergesetz, DolmG) du Land de Bavière, ces deux fonctions sont rassemblées sous le terme d’« interprète ». À l’inverse, un traducteur assermenté par un tribunal n’est pas autorisé à exercer comme interprète assermenté ! En France, les deux fonctions sont également rassemblées : un traducteur ou un interprète assermenté peut effectuer les deux types de mission.
 Doit-on vraiment étudier la traduction et l’interprétation ? Tout le monde peut le faire !
 Non, tout le monde ne peut pas le faire. Il ne suffit pas d’être le meilleur de la classe en anglais ni même d’avoir été élevé dans un environnement bilingue. Je fais de très bons gâteaux aux pommes et pourtant, je ne suis pas boulangère ! La traduction et l’interprétation sont des sciences en elles-mêmes. Posséder un excellent niveau dans ses langues sources et cibles est indispensable, mais de nombreux autres facteurs sont à prendre en compte. Essayez donc ! Traduisez pour le plaisir par exemple un article de votre journal préféré. Vous remarquerez vite que personne ne lit un texte avec la même profondeur qu’un traducteur. Sauriez-vous spontanément démêler des constructions de phrases tortueuses ? Maîtrisez-vous les règles de placement des virgules en allemand ou les règles du participe passé en français et aussi dans les langues étrangères que vous pratiquez ? Que faites-vous si vous rencontrez un mot ou un concept inconnu ? Pour un traducteur, chaque petite lacune ne signifie qu’une chose : recherche. La recherche demande du temps. Et le temps, c’est de l’argent. C’est également le cas pour l’interprétation. Essayez un peu ! Essayez de retenir ce que votre ami vous raconte et traduisez-le oralement dans la langue étrangère de votre choix. Naturellement, vous ne pouvez pas à ce moment-là chercher du vocabulaire dans un dictionnaire. Ici, c’est la même chose : personne n’écoute avec la même précision qu’un interprète.
 Qu’est-ce qu’une « ligne standard » ?
 Une ligne standard se compose de 55 caractères. Chaque signe représente un caractère, même les espaces ! Le plus long mot de la langue allemande « Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung (Duden) » est composé de 67 lettres. Pour cette expression, je peux soit facturer un mot unique, soit environ 1,25 ligne standard, car soyons honnêtes : ce n’est pas de la tarte de transférer de telles inventions de mots allemands dans une autre langue !
 Une traduction « assermentée » ou encore « certifiée conforme » d’un acte officiel ou d’un acte juridique privé peut seulement être réalisée par des traducteurs ayant été assermentés par un tribunal. Ces « traducteurs assermentés » sont nommés différemment en fonction des Länder en Allemagne, mais ils possèdent un point commun important : seules des personnes possédant un diplôme de traduction ou d’interprétation sont autorisées à posséder une licence pour apposer un cachet de traduction assermentée. Puisque la désignation du métier de traducteur ou d’interprète n’est pas protégée et que tout un chacun peut se présenter comme tel, l’assermentation est une enseigne significative pour quelqu’un ayant brillamment réussi ses études de traduction ou d’interprétation. En France, la situation est un peu différente : il n’est pas obligatoire de posséder un diplôme pour devenir expert pour les tribunaux, mais il faut suivre régulièrement des formations spécialisées dans le domaine juridique pour conserver son assermentation.
 Les programmes de traduction automatique traduisent pour moi : je n’ai pas besoin d’un traducteur !
 C’est comme si vous placiez tous les ingrédients pour faire un gâteau dans votre four préchauffé. Le four va cuire les ingrédients, mais ceux-ci ne vont pas former une pâte à gâteau tout seuls. Vous devez les aider un peu pour que cela se produise. Le monde informatique est fascinant, je ne peux pas dire le contraire. Mais il s’agit ici d’une intelligence artificielle qui ne peut pas rivaliser avec un traducteur humain. De tels programmes de traduction automatique crachent des mots qui ont été entrés au préalable – certes par un être humain. Puis ils combinent les mots et cherchent des exemples similaires pour former des phrases. Comment la phrase est-elle construite ? Quel type de syntaxe est utilisé ? Aïe ! Le vide total ! Aucun exemple ne correspond, le programme est dépassé. Soit il ne vous donne aucun résultat, soit il vous présente une énorme liste. Au final, c’est vous qui devez choisir la meilleure solution et il vous faut mettre votre cerveau en marche – de la même manière qu’il faut préparer la pâte du gâteau.
 Que sont les outils de TAO ?
 TAO signifie Traduction Assistée par Ordinateur (en anglais, CAT : Computer Aided Translation). Ces outils ou logiciels ne doivent pas être confondus avec les programmes de traduction automatique cités précédemment. Les logiciels de TAO, comme Trados de SDL, nous aident, nous autres traducteurs ou chefs de projets, dans notre travail. Nous alimentons le logiciel avec ce que nous savons et ce que nous avons déjà traduit. Lorsque nous nous mettons à traduire un nouveau texte, le logiciel reconnaît lorsque des entrées ressemblent à d’autres qu’il possède dans sa base de données et nous le signale.
 Où puis-je trouver un traducteur ou un interprète pour une autre combinaison de langues ?
 Si vous avez besoin d’un traducteur ou d’un interprète assermenté, vous pouvez consulter la base de données gratuite des traducteurs et interprètes des administrations judiciaires régionales (Landesjustizverwaltungen) (http://www.justiz-dolmetscher.de/suche.jsp). Vous pouvez filtrer par nom, langue et tribunal compétent ou afficher simplement les résultats proches de chez vous. Une autre ressource très pratique est la base de données gratuite de l’Association fédérale des traducteurs et interprètes, le Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer (BDÜ), (https://recherche.bdue.de). Ici, vous pouvez également filtrer par domaine de spécialité (par ex. ingénierie mécanique) et d’autres détails. La recherche de proximité est également possible. Vous préférez une recommandation personnelle ? Contactez-moi. J'ai un large réseau et je serais heureuse de vous recommander un collègue approprié à vos besoins.
 Tous les traducteurs font-ils de l’interprétation ? Tous les interprètes font-ils aussi de la traduction ?
 Non. Certains de mes collègues ne font que de la traduction et d’autres que de l’interprétation. Il s’agit de deux métiers semblables et pourtant très différents l’un de l’autre. Le traducteur transmet un texte à l’écrit et l’interprète transmet un discours à l’oral. Un collègue peut préférer l’écrit, alors qu’un autre préfèrera l’oral. Je travaille en tant que traductrice et interprète car j’ai étudié les deux métiers.
 Êtes-vous une agence de traduction ?
 Pas directement. Les agences ou bureaux de traduction fournissent d’abord et avant tout des traducteurs et des interprètes à leurs clients partout dans le monde. De mon côté, je traduis et j’interprète moi-même principalement. Je ne soustraite avec des collègues traducteurs et interprètes dans d’autres combinaisons de langues et domaines de spécialités que sur demande. Par ex., il arrive que mes clients doivent faire traduire un même document dans plusieurs langues mais qu’ils ne soient pas encore en contact avec des traducteurs pour le russe, l’espagnol ou l’italien. Grâce à mon large réseau, je leur recommande dans ce cas des collègues de confiance. Je peux également vous recommander des collègues compétents pour des demandes d’interprétation, qui sont souvent liées à une ville ou une région, contrairement à la traduction qui peut s’effectuer de n’importe où.
 Est-ce que vous donnez aussi des cours ?
 En plus de mes activités de traduction et d’interprétation, j’enseigne également l’allemand, l’anglais et le français aux enfants, adolescents et adultes. J’apprécie beaucoup de pouvoir aider d’autres personnes grâce à mes connaissances. J’ai commencé à enseigner alors que j’allais encore moi-même à l’école. Mon métier principal, c’est-à-dire la traduction et l'interprétation, prend beaucoup de mon temps. Je ne peux enseigner que pendant mon temps libre. Mes élèves, petits ou grands, m’apportent énormément et chaque leçon passée avec eux est un grand facteur de motivation. C’est pour cette raison que je reste attachée à l’enseignement, même après tant d'années.
 *DAS BÜRO IN ALTDORF BEI NÜRNBERG IST UMGEZOGEN*
 NEUE ADRESSE SEIT AUGUST 2018:
 92245 Kümmersbruck (Amberg)
 Numéro de téléphone : +49 (0) 9621 78 87 52 0
 Adresse électronique : info@tradette.de
 Numéro TVA allemand : DE296205823
 Les informations relatives à la protection des données qui vont suivre se réfèrent au traitement des données effectué par :
 2. Collecte et conservation des données à caractère personnel et nature et finalité de leur utilisation
 Lors de la visite de notre site www.tradette.de, des informations sont automatiquement envoyées au serveur de notre site web via le navigateur de votre équipement (ordinateur, tablette ou téléphone portable). Ces informations sont temporairement stockées dans un fichier nommé fichier log. Sans votre intervention, les informations suivantes sont collectées et stockées jusqu'à ce qu'elles soient supprimées automatiquement :
 l'adresse IP de l'ordinateur envoyant la requête,
 le site web, depuis lequel l'accès est fait (l'URL précédemment visitée),
 le navigateur utilisé et, le cas échéant, le système d’exploitation de votre ordinateur ainsi que le nom de votre fournisseur d'accès.
 assurer une connexion sans problèmes,
 évaluer la sécurité du système et la stabilité
 ainsi qu'autres raisons administratives.
 Le traitement des données a pour base juridique l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous F du RGPD. Notre intérêt légitime est basé uniquement aux fins de traitement indiquées plus haut. En aucun cas, nous n'utilisons les données collectées pour tenter de vous identifier.
 Quand vous souhaitez nous poser des questions, vous avez la possibilité d'utiliser le formulaire de contact à votre disposition sur notre site web. Dans ce formulaire, il est nécessaire d'indiquer une adresse e-mail ou un numéro de téléphone pour que nous sachions qui a envoyé cette demande et pour que nous puissions y répondre. Toute autre information est facultative.
 Le traitement des données dans le but de prendre contact avec nous se fait selon l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous a du RGPD sur la base de votre consentement libre.
 Les données à caractère personnel que nous collectons pendant l'utilisation du formulaire de contact sont supprimées automatiquement après le traitement de votre demande.
 Vos données personnelles ne sont transférées à des tiers que pour les raisons suivantes.
 Nous ne transférons vos données personnelles à des tiers que si :
 Vous avez donné votre consentement explicite selon l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous a du RGPD ;
 la transmission selon l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous f du RGPD est nécessaire à la constatation, à l'exercice ou à la défense d'un droit en justice et lorsqu'il n'y a aucune raison de considérer que vos intérêts légitimes et impérieux prévalent sur le motif exigeant de communiquer vos données ;
 la transmission est nécessaire au respect d'une obligation légale selon l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous c du RGPD ;
 la transmission est autorisée par la loi et si selon l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous b du RGPD le traitement est nécessaire à l'exécution d'un contrat avec vous.
 selon l'art. 15 du RGPD, d'obtenir des informations relatives à vos données à caractère personnel traitées par nous. Vous pouvez notamment demander des informations relatives aux finalités du traitement, aux catégories de données personnelles, aux catégories de destinataires auxquels vos données ont été ou seront communiquées, à la durée de conservation envisagée, à l'existence du droit de demander la rectification, l'effacement et la limitation du traitement ou du droit de s'opposer à ce traitement, à l'existence du droit d'introduire une réclamation, à la source de vos données lorsqu'elles n'ont pas été collectées par nous, ainsi qu'à l'existence d'une prise de décision automatisée, y compris un profilage, et, le cas échéant, d'informations utiles concernant leurs détails ;
 selon l'art. 16 du RGPD, d'obtenir dans les meilleurs délais, la rectification de vos données qui sont inexactes et stockées par nous, et que les données stockées par nous qui sont incomplètes soient complétées ;
 selon l'art. 17 du RGPD, d'obtenir dans les meilleurs délais, l’effacement de vos données à caractère personnel stockées par nous, si le traitement n'est pas nécessaire à l'exercice du droit à la liberté d'expression et d'information, pour respecter une obligation légale, pour des motifs d'intérêt public ou pour la constatation, à l'exercice ou à la défense de droits en justice ;
 selon l'art. 18 du RGPD, d'obtenir la limitation du traitement de vos données à caractère personnel, lorsque vous contestez l'exactitude des données à caractère personnel, que le traitement est illicite mais que vous vous opposez à leur effacement et que nous n'avons plus besoin des données mais que vous en avez besoin pour la constatation, l'exercice ou la défense de droits en justice, ou lorsque vous vous êtes opposé au traitement selon l'art. 21 du RGPD ;
 selon l'art. 20 du RGPD, d’obtenir la liste de vos données à caractère personnel que vous nous avez fournies, dans un format structuré, couramment utilisé et lisible par machine, ou de demander la transmission des données à un autre responsable ;
 selon l'art. 7 par. 3 du RGPD, de retirer votre consentement à tout moment. Il en résulte que nous n'aurons plus le droit à l’avenir de continuer le traitement des données qui était basé sur ce consentement,
 selon l'art. 77 du RGPD, d'introduire une réclamation auprès d'une autorité de contrôle. En règle générale, vous pouvez contacter l'autorité de contrôle proche de votre lieu de résidence ou de votre lieu de travail.
 Lorsque vos données à caractère personnel sont traitées sur la base d'un intérêt légitime selon l'art. 6 par. 1 p. 1 sous f du RGPD, vous avez le droit vous opposer, selon l'art. 21 du RGPD, au traitement de vos données personnelles, lorsque vous avez des raisons tenant à votre situation ou que l'opposition concerne des fins de prospection. Dans ce dernier cas, vous avez un droit d'opposition général que nous réalisons sans indications relatives à une situation particulière.
 Si vous souhaitez exercer votre droit d'opposition, il suffit d'envoyer un mail à info@tradette.de
 Pendant votre visite sur notre site web, nous utilisons la méthode de cryptage courante SSL (Secure Socket Layer) en combinaison avec le niveau le plus élevé de cryptage supporté par votre navigateur. En règle générale, il s'agit d'un cryptage de 256 bits. Si votre navigateur ne supporte pas de cryptage 256 bits, nous avons recours à la technologie de 128 bits v3. Si vous souhaitez vérifier si une page de notre site web est transférée de manière sécurisée, veuillez regarder dans la barre d'état inférieure de votre navigateur pour y trouver l'affichage d'une clé ou serrure fermée. Nous appliquons des mesures de sécurité techniques et organisationnelles adaptées pour protéger vos données contre toute manipulation accidentelle ou intentionnelle, toute perte partielle ou totale, toute destruction et contre l'accès non autorisé de tiers. Nos mesures de sécurité sont améliorées de manière régulière en fonction des progrès technologiques.
 7. Actualité et modification de la présente politique de confidentialité
 De par l'évolution de notre site web et de nos offres sur ce site web et en raison de changements au niveau des règlementations légales ou administratives, il peut être nécessaire d'adapter cette politique de confidentialité. Vous trouvez et pouvez imprimer la politique de confidentialité actuelle à tout moment sur notre site web www.tradette.de.


type: wikipedia

text:
Η Τουρκική λίρα είναι το εθνικό νόμισμα της Τουρκίας. Χρησιμοποιείται στην Τουρκία και στις κατεχόμενες από την Τουρκία περιοχές της Κύπρου, οι οποίες αυτοαποκαλούνται «Τουρκική Δημοκρατία της Βόρειας Κύπρου», καθώς και σε εδάφη της Συρίας, που κατέχονται με εισβολή, από το 2019, από την ίδια την Τουρκία.
 Νέα Τουρκική Λίρα
 Η Νέα Τουρκική Λίρα έγινε το νέο εθνικό νόμισμα της Τουρκίας από την 1η Ιανουαρίου του 2005. Ισοδυναμεί με 1 εκατομμύριο παλιές τουρκικές λίρες και διαιρείται σε 100 νέα κουρούς (kuruş) (τα οποία είχαν καταργηθεί εδώ και 20 χρόνια). Μέχρι το τέλος του 2005 κυκλοφορούσαν και τα δύο νομίσματα και οι τιμές αναγράφονταν και στα δύο. Από την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2009 το νέο νόμισμα έχει και πάλι το σύμβολο TL.
 Τυποποίηση νομίσματος
 Σύμβολο: YTL (Yeni Türk Lirası), Ο κωδικός ISO 4217 της Νέας Τουρκικής Λίρας είναι «TRY».
 Χαρτονομίσματα: 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 και 1 YTL.
 Κέρματα: 1 YTL και 50, 25, 10, 5, και 1 νέο κουρούς.
 Όλα τα χαρτονομίσματα και τα κέρματα απεικονίζουν τον δημιουργό της σύγχρονης Τουρκίας, Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ.
 Το μέγεθος και το σχέδιο των 50 κουρούς και της μίας νέας λίρας μοιάζουν με αυτά των 1€ και 2€ αντίστοιχα. Αυτό δύναται να προκαλέσει σύγχυση στην ευρωζώνη. Ακόμα, επέφερε προβλήματα σε επιχειρήσεις που χρησιμοποιούν αυτόματα μηχανήματα συναλλαγών (όπως π.χ. σε αεροδρόμια), τα οποία δέχονταν τα κέρματα της μίας λίρας αντί για τα κέρματα των 2€. Καθώς χονδρικά η αξία των κερμάτων της μίας λίρας ανέρχεται στο 1/4 των κερμάτων των 2€, τα επηρεασμένα μηχανήματα αναβαθμίστηκαν με έξοδα των ιδιοκτητών τους.
 Ιστορία
 Λόγω του υψηλού πληθωρισμού στην Τουρκία από τη δεκαετία 1970 ως και τη δεκαετία 1990, η τουρκική λίρα υπέστη σημαντική υποτίμηση. Από περίπου 9 λίρες ανά δολλάριο ΗΠΑ στα τέλη της δεκαετίας του 1960 κατέληξε στις περίπου 1,65 εκατομμύρια λίρες στα τέλη του 2001. Οι υπολογισμοί και οι στατιστικές είχαν γίνει πλέον ιδιαίτερα δύσκολοι. Ο Πρωθυπουργός Ρετζέπ Ταγίπ Ερντογάν αποκάλεσε το ζήτημα αυτό «εθνική ντροπή». Το Δεκέμβριο του 2004 το Τουρκικό Κοινοβούλιο πέρασε νόμο που επέτρεψε την απομάκρυνση έξι μηδενικών από το νόμισμα και τη δημιουργία της Νέας Τουρκικής Λίρας.
 Οι ισοτιμίες την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2005 ήταν:
 USD 1.00 = TRL 1,325,700.00 = TRY 1.3257
 EUR 1.00 = TRL 1,798,179.00 = TRY 1.79818
 TRY 1.00 = USD 0.75432
 TRY 1.00 = EUR 0.55612
 Η εισαγωγή της Νέας Τουρκικής Λίρας συνοδεύτηκε από την έκδοση δύο νέων χαρτονομισμάτων που δεν είχαν αντίστοιχο στο παλιό σύστημα: TRY 100 και TRY 50.
 Από τις αρχές του 2018 και μέχρι σήμερα η Τουρκική λίρα έχει υποτιμηθεί εξαιρετικά.
 Με την οικονομική κρίση η οποία εντάθηκε στην Τουρκία στις αρχές το 2021, τον Απρίλιο του συγκεκριμένου έτους, ένα ευρώ έφτασε να ισοδυναμεί με 10 τουρκικές λίρες.
 Παραπομπές
 Δικτυακοί τόποι
 Κεντρική Τράπεζα της Τουρκίας (τουρκικά/αγγλικά)
 Γενικές πληροφορίες για τη Νέα Τουρκική Λίρα (τουρκικά/αγγλικά)
 Φωτογραφίες των νέων χαρτονομισμάτων και κερμάτων - Διαφημιστική εκστρατεία
 Images of Turkish Banknotes
 Λιρα Τουρκική
 Λιρα
 Νομίσματα της Ευρώπης
 tr:Türk lirası#Sekizinci emisyon


text:
 22.6.2013
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 178/4
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce podaná Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia (Itálie) dne 27. března 2013 — SICES a další v. Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia
 (Věc C-155/13)
 2013/C 178/06
 Jednací jazyk: italština
 Předkládající soud
 Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia
 Účastníci původního řízení
 Žalobci: Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi S.r.l, v likvidaci (SICES) a další
 Žalovaný: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia
 Předběžná otázka
 Má se článek 6 nařízení Komise (ES) č. 341/2007 ze dne 29. března 2007 (1) vykládat v tom smyslu, že skutková podstata nepovoleného převodu licence na dovoz česneku čínského původu za zvýhodněných celních podmínek v rámci kvót GATT je naplněna, pokud držitel této dovozní licence uvede, po zaplacení příslušného cla, na trh česnek čínského původu jeho prodejem jinému subjektu oprávněnému k dovozu, od něhož před dovozem tento česnek nabyl?
 (1) Nařízení Komise (ES) č. 341/2007 ze dne 29. března 2007 o otevření a správě celních kvót a zavedení režimu dovozních licencí a osvědčení o původu pro česnek a některé jiné zemědělské produkty dovážené ze třetích zemí (Úř. věst. L 90, s. 12).


text: b' AUDIT OF\n MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING\n CORPORATION\nINDIRECT COST RATE PROPOSAL\n\n FOR THE YEAR ENDED\n DECEMBER 31, 1999\n\n\n\n\n U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n REPORT NO: 02-01-211-03-370\n DATE: July 24, 2001\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n PAGE\n\nACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3\n\n AUDIT OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n\n AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n\nFINDING AND RECOMMENDATION\n\n QUESTIONED INDIRECT COSTS - $94,932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n\nEXHIBITS\n\n A SCHEDULE OF INDIRECT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n\n B SCHEDULE OF DIRECT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION\n RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11\n\x0c ACRONYMS\n\n\n\nCAS Cost Accounting Standards\n\n\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\n\n\nCY Calendar Year\n\n\nFAR Federal Acquisition Regulations\n\n\nJCC Job Corps Centers\n\n\nMTC Management and Training Corporation\n\n\n\n\n -i-\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nThe U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, conducted an audit of Management\nand Training Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s (MTC) final indirect cost proposal for Calendar Year (CY) 1999.\nThe audit objective was to determine if indirect costs of $14,628,218 were reasonable, allocable,\nand allowable in accordance with applicable cost principles. Of the $14,628,218 indirect costs,\n$10,553,680 or 72 percent was allocated to Job Corps.\n\nMTC, a for-profit company, was founded in 1980. During CY 1999, MTC received total revenue\nof $286 million. Of this amount, $216 million or 76 percent was provided by the Office of Job\nCorps to operate 22 Job Corps Centers (JCC) and one job training and placement program. Each\nJCC has a contractual indirect cost rate ceiling, which ranges from 5.85 to 6.30 percent.\n\nAudit Results\n\nOverall costs claimed by MTC were reasonable, allocable, and allowable. However, we question\n$94,932 of indirect costs claimed which included compensation and center directors\xe2\x80\x99 car\nallowance of $85,449 recorded as indirect costs that should be reclassified as non-reimbursable\ndirect costs and added to the base. As a result, the proposed indirect cost rate for CY 1999\nshould be reduced from 5.87 to 5.81 percent, as shown below:\n\n Proposed Questioned Per Audit\n Allocated Indirect Costs $10,553,680 $94,932 $10,458,748\n Direct Cost $179,889,423 ($85,449) $179,974,872\n Indirect Cost Rate Percentage 5.87 5.81\n\n\nQuestioned indirect costs of $94,932 are summarized below:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We question $73,770 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share of executives\xe2\x80\x99 compensation\n that exceeded the statutory salary ceiling of $125,900.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We question $8,170 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share of the JCC directors\xe2\x80\x99 car\n allowance that should have been allocated directly to the JCC based on benefits\n received.\n\n\n\n\n -1-\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 We question $9,008 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share of audit fees related to the\n Corrections program. This service only benefited MTC\xe2\x80\x99s Correction program and,\n therefore, should not be allocated to the Job Corps program.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We question $3,984 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share of unallowable costs consisting\n of $3,421 for a golf outing and alcoholic beverages, and $563 for preparation of a\n gift tax return.\n\nRecommendation\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training ensures that MTC\napply a revised indirect cost rate of 5.81 percent to the direct costs of its JCC (Exhibit B) and\namend its billings accordingly.\n\nManagement and Training Corporation Response\n\nThe Senior Vice President responded to our draft report on July 2, 2001. He agreed with our\nfindings and questioned indirect costs of $34,346 for executive compensation ($13,184), JCC\ndirectors\xe2\x80\x99 car allowance ($8,170), costs other than JC ($9,008) and unallowable costs of\n($3,984). However, he disagreed with $60,586 of the car allowance included in executive\ncompensation.\n\nMTC\xe2\x80\x99s response to the draft report has been incorporated in the report with our comments. It is\nalso included in its entirety as an Appendix.\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n Job Corps was established in 1964 and is presently authorized under\n BACKGROUND Title I, Subtitle C of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The\n overall purpose of the program is to provide economically\n disadvantaged youth with the opportunity to become more responsible,\nemployable citizens. With annual funding of over $1 billion, Job Corps is the largest Federal youth\nemployment and training program. Operations of the program are carried out mostly at\nresidential centers where students participate in intensive programs of academic training,\nvocational training, work experience, and counseling.\n\nMTC, a for-profit company, was founded in 1980. During CY 1999, MTC received total revenue\nof $286 million. Of this amount, $216 million or 76 percent was provided by the Office of Job\nCorps to operate 22 JCCs and one job training and placement program.\n\nFor CY 1999, MTC proposed an indirect cost rate of 5.87 percent, to be applied to total direct\ncosts (excluding government reimbursable capital expenditures), as shown below:\n\n Indirect Cost Pool $ 10,553,680\n Job Corps Direct Costs $179,889,423\n Indirect Cost Rate Percentage 5.87\n\nEach Job Corps Center has a contractual indirect cost rate ceiling which ranges from 5.85 percent\nto 6.31 percent. The maximum allowable indirect cost on the contract is the ceiling rate or the\ncomputed rate, whichever is lower.\n\n Center Ceiling Rate Center Ceiling Rate\n Atlanta 6.00 Hawaii 5.90\n Atterbury 6.30 Inland 5.93\n Cascades 6.00 Keystone 5.93\n Charleston 6.00 Kittrell 5.93\n Chicago 5.93 Philadelphia 5.93\n Cincinnati 5.85 Potomac 5.93\n Clearfield 6.00 Red Rock 6.31\n Cleveland 6.00 Sierra 5.93\n Dayton 5.93 Springdale 5.92\n Denison 5.85 Tongue Point 5.85\n Flint Hills 5.93 Turner 5.93\n\n -3-\n\x0c The audit objective was to determine if indirect costs claimed for CY\n AUDIT OBJECTIVE 1999 were reasonable, allocable, and allowable in accordance with\n applicable cost principles. The cost principles set forth in the Federal\n Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)\nand Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) were used as criteria in evaluating the allowability of\ncosts claimed.\n\n\n We audited CY 1999 indirect costs of $10,553,680 allocated to the\n AUDIT SCOPE and Job Corps program. We examined the general ledger, financial\n METHODOLOGY statements, and other supporting documentation including vouchers\n and invoices. We tested expenditures using a combination of\n random and judgmental sampling techniques to test individual\naccount transactions.\n\nDirect costs of $179,889,423, which were used as the base to compute the indirect cost rate, were\nnot audited. Nonetheless, direct costs were amended as a result of our audit by reclassifications\nfrom the indirect cost pool.\n\nWe obtained an understanding of the internal controls through inquiries with appropriate\npersonnel, inspection of relevant documentation, and observation of MTC\xe2\x80\x99s operation. The\nnature and extent of our testing were based on a risk assessment.\n\nThe audit was performed using criteria we considered relevant. Criteria included the CFR Title\n20, and the Federal contract cost principles set forth in FAR, Part 31. Also, other requirements in\nthe current contract were used as criteria in evaluating the allowability of claimed costs.\n\nWe conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and standards\napplicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the\nComptroller General of the United States. We conducted fieldwork from March 12, 2001 to\nMarch 29, 2001, at MTC\xe2\x80\x99s corporate office located in Ogden, UT. Audit results were discussed\nwith MTC\xe2\x80\x99s management at an exit conference on March 29, 2001.\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\x0c FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION\n\nQUESTIONED INDIRECT COSTS - $94,932\n\nOverall costs claimed by MTC were reasonable, allocable, and allowable. However, we question\n$94,9321 of indirect costs claimed, which included compensation and center directors\xe2\x80\x99 car\nallowance of $85,449 recorded as indirect costs that should be reclassified as non-reimbursable\ndirect costs and added to the base. As a result, the proposed indirect cost rate for CY 1999\nshould be reduced from 5.87 to 5.81 percent, as shown below:\n\n Proposed Questioned Per Audit\n Allocated Indirect Costs $10,553,680 $94,932 $10,458,748\n Direct Cost $179,889,423 ($85,449) $179,974,872\n Indirect Cost Rate Percentage 5.87 5.81\n\nQuestioned costs of $94,932 are presented below:\n\n Description Amount\n Executive Compensation $73,770\n Car allowances 8,170\n Cost - Other than Job Corps 9,008\n Unallowable Costs 3,984\n Total $94,932\n\n\n\n\n 1\n This amount represents Job Corps portion of total questioned costs. The percentages allocated to Job\nCorps depended on the cost pool allocated. For cost pools I, II and III, the Job Corps percentages were 75.06,\n99.43 and 98.43 percent, respectively.\n\n -5-\n\x0c Seven executives of MTC received compensation which\n Executive Compensation exceeded Job Corps statutory salary ceiling of $125,900. This\n occurred because MTC did not include employer contributions\n to a defined contribution pension plan and monthly car\nallowances paid to MTC executives as compensation. As a result, we question $73,770\nrepresenting Job Corps share of executive compensation of $77,149 in excess of the ceiling.\nPublic Law 105-277, Statute 2681-346, Sec. 101 states:\n\n None of the funds appropriated in this title for the Job Corps shall be used to pay the\n compensation of an individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an indirect cost,\n at a rate in excess of Executive Level III.2\n\nFAR 31.205-6(p)(2)(i) states:\n\n Compensation means total amount of wages, salary, bonuses, deferred compensation (see\n paragraph (k) of this subsection), and employer contributions to defined contribution\n pension plans (see paragraphs (j)(5) and (j)(8) of this subsection) for the fiscal year,\n whether paid, earned, or otherwise accruing, as recorded in the contractors cost\n accounting records for the fiscal year.\n\nMTC voluntarily excluded executive salaries in excess of Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 statutory salary ceiling of\n$125,900. However, compensation for employer contributions to a defined contribution pension\nplan and monthly car allowances paid to MTC executives were not excluded. Car allowances\npaid to MTC executives should have been included in the total amount of employee\ncompensation, since employees received a set monthly allowance of $1,100, and did not have to\ndocument their expenses. Therefore, this is not a reimbursement of expenses, it is additional\ncompensation.\n\nMTC Response\n\n We agree that the employer contributions to defined contribution pension plans were\n inadvertently omitted from the calculation for the limitation of executive compensation.\n The employer contributions to defined contribution pension plans would have amounted\n to a total disallowable amount of $13,184 of the $73,770.\n\n As far as the remaining amount, which represents car allowances, we believe that the\n FAR defines what is compensation and what should be included in the limitation of\n compensation. . . .\n\n The FAR is very specific as to what total compensation means in reference to this\n paragraph of the limitation of compensation. It does not include car allowances paid as\n an item to be included in the limitation. We agree that car allowances are compensation\n\n 2\n The CY 1999 Executive Level III annual salary was $125,900.\n\n -6-\n\x0c and would be an item that would be included as compensation as noted in paragraph (a)\n where compensation is defined and begins \xe2\x80\x9cIt includes, but is not limited to, \xe2\x80\x9cand then\n gives a listing of various types of compensation. However, paragraph (p)(2) states \xe2\x80\x9cAs\n used in this paragraph:\xe2\x80\x9d then goes farther to specifically define the limitations on the\n what compensation is to be limited. We believe that we properly excluded the car\n allowances from the limitation according to the FAR. Our premise is that car\n allowances are compensation, but not a limited compensation for the purposes of the\n noted paragraph and should be allowed. This would result in a difference with the\n finding of $60,586. . . .\n\nOIG Comment\n\nWe do not agree. These funds were provided to certain executives and were included as wages\non the employees\xe2\x80\x99 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statements. Although classified as \xe2\x80\x9cCar\nAllowances\xe2\x80\x9d on MTC\xe2\x80\x99s books, the compensation was not a reimbursement of actual expenses,\nbut additional employee wages.\n\n\n One month of car allowances of $8,300 paid to nine JCC\n JCC Directors directors were allocated to the indirect cost pool. Car\n Car Allowances allowances of JCC directors directly benefit the JCC and\n should be directly charged to the specific contract. As a\n result, we question $8,170 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share\n(98.43 percent) of the $8,300 charged. FAR 31.202 (a) states:\n\n . . . . Costs identified specifically with the contract are direct costs of the contract and\n are to be charged directly to the contract. . . .\n\nMTC Response\n\n We agree that the amount was improperly included for one month. It should be noted\n that this was an oversight and only occurred for that one month when the individual that\n normally does this work was out on leave.\n\n\n MTC allocated a fee paid to the accounting firm KPMG Peat\n Costs - Other than Job Marwick for preparing financial statements for the Correction\xe2\x80\x99s\n Corps program. The audit fee was exclusively for another program\n and did not benefit the Job Corps program. Therefore, this\n cost should have been allocated to the Corrections program\nbased on benefits received. As a result, we question $9,008 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share (75.06\npercent) of $12,000 in accounting fees included in the indirect cost pool. FAR 31.202(a) states:\n\n\n\n\n -7-\n\x0c A direct cost is any cost that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost\n objective. . . . All costs specifically identified with other final cost objectives of the\n contractor are direct costs of those cost objectives and are not to be charged to the\n contract directly or indirectly.\n\nMTC Response\n\n After reviewing the documentation we are in agreement with the finding.\n\n Unallowable costs of $3,984 representing Job Corps\xe2\x80\x99 share\n Unallowable Costs (75.06 percent) of $5,308 consisting of $3,630 for a golf\n outing, $928 for alcoholic beverages and $750 for preparation\n of an individual gift tax return. As a result we question\n$3,984. FAR 31.205-14 states:\n\n Costs of amusement, diversions, social activities, and any directly associated costs such\n as tickets to shows or sports events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities\n are unallowable.\n\nRegarding the unallowable cost for alcoholic beverages, FAR 31.205-51 states:\n\n Costs of alcoholic beverages are unallowable.\n\nThe unallowable costs for preparation of an individual gift tax return, FAR 31.201-4 states:\n\n A cost is allocable if it is assignable or chargeable to one or more cost objectives on the\n basis of relative benefits received or other equitable relationship. Subject to the\n foregoing, a cost is allocable to a Government contract if it: (a) Is incurred specifically\n for the contract. . . .\n\nMTC Response\n\n In reviewing these costs, we were able to determine that the staff did not follow the\n process in coding the disbursement properly. We agree with this finding.\n\nRecommendation\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training ensures that MTC\napply the revised indirect cost rate of 5.81 percent to direct costs of its JCC (Exhibit B) and\namend its billings accordingly.\n\n\n\n\n -8-\n\x0c Exhibit A\n\n Management and Training Corporation\n Schedule of Indirect Costs\n For Year Ended December 31, 1999\n\n\nCost Center Proposed Questioned Per Audit\nExecutive Office $671,687 $3,421 $668,266\nFinance 1,645,291 9,571 1,635,720\nCorps. Info. System 883,002 883,002\nSpecial Services 114,375 114,375\nCommunications 227,205 227,205\nHuman Resources 1,391,374 8,726 1,382,648\nInternal Audit 140,967 140,967\nRisk Management 152,470 152,470\nProgram Design &\nDevelopment 319,610 319,610\nContract Administration 469,792 469,792\nTraining Programs 1,286,044 54,660 1,231,384\nEastern NE Region 613,331 613,331\nSE Region Office 746,393 746,393\nCentral Region Office 725,892 725,892\nJob Corps B&P 485,578 485,578\nWestern Region 680,669 18,554 662,115\nTotal $10,553,680 $94,932 $10,458,748\n\n\n\n\n -9-\n\x0c Exhibit B\n\n Management and Training Corporation\n Schedule of Direct Costs\n For Year Ended December 31, 1999\n\n\n\n Contract Reclassified Revised\nNumber Center Direct Costs From Indirect Direct Costs\n13-6-0011-43 Atlanta $8,210,078 $8,210,078\n5-JC-952-18 Atterbury 11,128,568 11,128,568\n13-4-0011-43 Brunswick 40,139 40,139\nJC-RX-95-01 Cascades 5,593,139 5,593,139\n3-JC-546-54 Charleston 7,461,174 7,461,174\n5-JC-970-17 Chicago 4,945,269 4,945,269\n5-JC-950-39 Cincinnati-Old 1,835,115 1,835,115\n5-JC-971-39 Cincinnati-New 3,051,234 3,051,234\nJCC-4007-49 Clearfield 22,026,190 22,026,190\n5-JC-958-39 Cleveland 6,218,046 6,218,046\n5-JC-946-39 Dayton-Old (30) (30)\n5-JC-965-39 Dayton-New 5,495,321 5,495,321\nJCC-3004-19 Denison-Old 5,085 5,085\nJCC-8001-19 Denison-New 5,489,375 5,489,375\nJCC-5008-20 Flint Hills 4,979,810 4,979,810\nEA-001-6-00-15 Hawaii 8,647,031 8,647,031\nEA-006-5-00-06 Inland 6,491,443 6,491,443\n3-JC-614-42 Keystone 11,059,233 11,059,233\n37-7-0005-43 Kittrell 6,217,369 6,217,369\n3-JC-654-42 Philadelphia 4,306,570 4,306,570\n3-JC-619-11 Potomac 9,906,129 9,906,129\n3-JC-555-42 Red Rock 5,598,819 5,598,819\nJC-4-22-00033 Shreveport 3,880,038 3,880,038\nUNR-6247 Sierra 8,518,609 8,518,609\nJC-RX-94-01 Springport / Pivot-Old 3,560,322 3,560,322\nJC-RX-98-02 Springport / Pivot-New 939,764 939,764\nJC-RX-94-02 Tongue Point 6,227,316 6,227,316\nJC-RX-98-01 Tongue Point 2,101,997 2,101,997\n13-7-0002-43 Turner 15,296,353 15,296,353\n Non-Reimbursable 659,917 85,449 745,366\n Total Direct Costs $179,889,423 $85,449 $179,974,872\n\n\n\n\n -10-\n\x0c'


text:
Samhung Automobile Joint Venture Company ist ein nordkoreanischer Hersteller von Automobilen.
 Unternehmensgeschichte
 Das Unternehmen aus Pjöngjang begann 2013 mit der Produktion von Automobilen. Der Markenname lautet Chonji.
 Fahrzeuge
 Das Unternehmen montiert Fahrzeuge des chinesischen Herstellers Beiqi Foton Motor. Überliefert ist ein Pick-up mit Doppelkabine. Der BJ 1027 hat einen Radstand von 3025 mm. Der Dieselmotor mit 2200 cm3 Hubraum und 70 kW Leistung ermöglicht eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 125 km/h.
 Weblinks
 Erik van Ingen Schenau: China Motor Vehicle Documentation Centre (englisch)
 Einzelnachweise
 Pkw-Hersteller (Nordkorea)
 Unternehmen (Pjöngjang)
 Gegründet 2013


text:
Myrina is een geslacht van vlinders van de familie Lycaenidae, uit de onderfamilie Theclinae.
 Soorten
 M. anettae Fleury, 1924
 M. creta Hewitson, 1878
 M. cyara Hewitson, 1878
 M. dermaptera (Wallengren, 1857)
 M. derpiha Hewitson, 1878
 M. ficedula Trimen, 1879
 M. genuba Hewitson, 1875
 M. inopinata Butler, 1883
 M. milo Smith, 1896
 M. nomion Staudinger, 1891
 M. nzoiae Stoneham, 1937
 M. prabha Moore, 1877
 M. sharpei Baker, 1906
 M. silenus (Fabricius, 1775)
 M. subornata Lathy, 1903
 M. symira Hewitson, 1876
 M. tarpina Hewitson, 1878


text:
 Dôležité právne oznámenie
 |
 12008E/PRO/33
 Konsolidované znenie Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie - PROTOKOLY - Protokol (č. 33) k článku 157 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie
 Úradný vestník 115 , 09/05/2008 S. 0319 - 0319
 PROTOKOL (č. 33)K ČLÁNKU 157 ZMLUVY O FUNGOVANÍ EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIEVYSOKÉ ZMLUVNÉ STRANY,SA DOHODLI NA týchto ustanoveniach, ktoré sú pripojené k Zmluve o Európskej únii a k Zmluve o fungovaní Európskej únie:Pre účely článku 157 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie sa dávky v systéme zamestnaneckého sociálneho zabezpečenia nepokladajú za odmenu, ak sa týkajú obdobia zamestnania pred 17. májom 1990, s výnimkou prípadov pracovníkov alebo oprávnených rodinných príslušníkov, ktorí pred týmto dátumom podali súdnu žalobu alebo začali podobné konanie podľa uplatniteľného vnútroštátneho práva.--------------------------------------------------