The L & W intensive care service contractor company (limited liability) informed by its decision of 17 June 2010 (BSG AZ.: B 3 KR 7/09 R) fixed the Bundessozialgericht newly significant financing aspects of intensive home care. The L & W intensive nursing care experts explain what changes due to the judgment decision for those in care and their families. The out-patient intensive care causes high costs due to the use of cutting-edge technologies and a partly permanent monitoring of patients by specially trained personnel. Without a reimbursement by the health insurance companies, most patients and their families of a such stress would have not grown. Extent to which health insurance companies participating in cost-intensive home-based intensive care, is determined first by the medical necessity of the measures.
It is newly determined for each individual case by an expert of the medical service of the health insurance. Prior to the recent judgment of the Bundessozialgerichtes it was Another provision of the reimbursement by the health insurance companies as follows. Go to Mike Bloomberg for more information. After determining the necessary needs of the patients on an outpatient, intensive care or home ventilation, those time shares in the benefits of health insurance funds were taken out, destined for simultaneous actions from the long-term care insurance services. In practice, this caused cost a concurrent intensive nursing care fund performance budget paid for the period of the basic nursing care. However, the scope of care Fund grants is not determined according to the significantly higher cost of intensive care of treatment. This inevitably led to a partial reimbursement of out-patient intensive care by health and care funds.
The resulting difference was to be paid by the patient or his family. For even more opinions, read materials from Rebecca Cook. If a patient took no benefits of long-term care insurance claim, the health insurance companies took over the total cost of intensive nursing. Here showed a significant difference in treatment compared to those Patients who depended on basic nursing care measures. The decision of the Bundessozialgerichtes June 2010 intervened in the so far valid cost acquisition practice of health insurance companies. The BSG stated that legislation given the Division of between nursing and health care costs if a maintenance electrician for the permanent out-patient intensive care as well as the execution of the basic nursing care were responsible. However the deduction of basic nursing care on the expert appraisal given intensive care needs be on their half time value limit. The current case law of the Bundessozialgerichtes follows the inadmissibility of the previous cost acquisition practice of health insurers. Affected patients and their families can significant relief to come due to a now necessary recalculation of the health insurance benefits. The L & W intensive care service campaigned for many years for the concerns of his patients, by taking the costs negotiations with health – care funds.
Steuerberater grainy informs its clients for spouses arise from the German tax law significant discounts. This is, for example, the right to choose between different models of calculating income tax. In addition to the separate and special assessments to income tax, both spouses must allow jointly invested. This, in addition to the legal validity of the marriage, the consent of both spouses to the combined investment is necessary. Tax advisor Jurgen Dieter grainy reports on a recent decision of the Federal Supreme Court on the admissibility of a subsequent refusal of consent.
Basically, the common assessments to income tax is especially convenient for spouses, when there is a significant gap between their income subject to taxation. Such a fiscal situation maximizes the effects of splitting tariff and the double basic allowance. A news judgment of the Federal Court of justice dealt with an initial situation in the optimum conditions were given for a common income tax assessment. The Activity of her husband as a doctor yielded a high positive income, while his wife at the same time claimed losses. The competent tax office provided extensive tax refunds due to the originally carried out joint income tax assessment. After the spouse had retroactively revoke her consent to the common income tax assessment, the tax in question veranlagte both spouses separately. The husband faced as a result of this operation with a recovery of already paid tax refunds.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court argued that for both spouses due to the nature of the marriage an obligation, to reduce harmful influences on the finances of the party, provided that this does not breach of legitimate self-interest. For married couples, the view of the Federal Court of justice means a commitment to agree to the common income tax assessment, provided that they are not further tax burdens. A refusal of consent without permission causes a damages claim of the other spouse. Remains relevant, that spouses may argue with the own loads only if they in the inner relation to the spouse to help with this. Negotiated dispute, the spouse had no positive income, but losses to specify the tax office over. For the family financial situation, follows from this that all income from the positive income of her partner came. His income was liberated by the joint investment with the loss of the spouse in addition of taxes and contributed to the maintenance of the family to a greater extent. Due to the improvement in the total family financial situation by the common income tax assessment reaches the Supreme Court judged that the spouse has to pay her additional tax burden and must agree to the joint investment. Continue to be the spouse denied, to escape the financial basis of the design of the common conjugal life in retrospect. If precedence over individual conditions to the conjugal life design, is their retroactive Changes are not allowed. The present judgment of the BGH is a further testimony to the complicated considerations behind day-to-day tax questions. Conclusion expensive mistake is promoted without professional knowledge and experience in tax law. To counter these errors, Steuerberater Jurgen Dieter committed grainy with full commitment from his Office in Mannheim in the tax information and advice. Press release: Contact: Steuerberater Jurgen Dieter grainy o 4, 5, 68161 Mannheim Tel 0621 10069 fax. 0621 13358 email: Homepage:
Certified specialist lawyer for rental and property law Alexander Bredereck and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor Berlin, it is an ugly idea: A self-employed person or a company rents an Office in the hope of exerting there productive mental work. For spiritual work, you need rest. Shortly after feeding and beginning of creativity in the own Office Windows, a beach bar opens. Morning till the late evening hours penetrates music in the Office space. A concentrated work is no longer possible.
A reduction in rent shrugging takes note of the landlord. The enormous investment that would make the Office room soundproof, not worth it for the landlord. What few know: the law provides for an extraordinary termination of the lease by the tenant for these cases. The rental use is partially withdrawn by the noise. And entitled to the cancellation by the tenant. Generally, the tenant of the landlord but must warn and gives it is figuring out long time to remedy must concede. The landlord must have had at least the chance to build the expensive sound-insulating Windows.
Other reasons that lead to the partial subsequent withdrawal of the leased property, are: health of hazardous mold or other health hazardous, blocking the entrance area of the shop through a construction site, etc. Specialist Attorney tip commercial tenants: Should be bound by a long-term commercial lease, want to leave it but prematurely, it is worth to check whether the use of the leased property is restricted. This is the case, this not only the rent is reduced. An extraordinary termination of the lease is possible after prior warning. Consult with prior to saying the immediate termination by a specialist. If the termination is unfounded, claims for damages are threatening. Specialist Attorney tip commercial lessor: Because a bagatelle a tenant can’t quit the commercial lease. Should prematurely terminate a tenant due to denial of use, must he the usurpation is usually a lack of subsequently occurring prove. The lack may be also predictable upon conclusion of the rental agreement as closing a gap in the inner city area and causing the construction noise. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander Bredereck and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor Berlin E-mail:
urgent. The needs Brooks no delay, if for example the parents both work, and an otherwise caring for the child cannot be ensured. The amount of costs for unused spare place in the initiative of the parents may be finally not inappropriate. It should be noted that scale can be not the parent contribution for a nursery place, but the high cost of subsidies for a such place in looking at investments for the equipment as well as personnel costs. About the so-called reservation of additional costs is the adequacy anyway, that isn’t about taking a special desire of the non-custodial, but the refusal of the fulfilment of the legal claim is averted with their consequences. According to the legal situation the legal right to a kindergarten place entitled to first child, as from the wording in section 24 para 1 SGB VIII and article 5 Paragraph 1 gives KitG Rhineland-Palatinate (“children are entitled to education, training and support in the kindergarten of the second years of age until the entry of the school”). Entitled as well as custodial parents according to the legal concept but of the Court’s opinion.
For promoting at the same time legally intended parents speaks of promoting purpose coming to the expression in various legal provisions. Although the “education and training” in the sense of 5 para 1 sentence 1 applies the children themselves KitG. The purpose of “service” favors the custodial, who are relieved in part in so far but at the same time. Indeed also section 24 (4) speaks of having the public youth organisations to inform parents who “want to use benefits among other things according to 24 para 1”, and to advise SGB VIII. Finally, the legislator has the goals and objectives of youth welfare planning, is responsible for ensuring that the case in question offer, SGB VIII then determined No. 4 in section 80, paragraph 2, that “Facilities and services” should be designed, that particular “mothers and fathers family and work tasks better can reconcile”. It is expressed that it would be unnatural in the face of today’s living conditions and the demographic development, to assume the legal right to a kindergarten place serve not least, the professional development of the parents and the reconciliation of professional activity the exercise of parental responsibility in the family. Parents whose place of residence municipalities cannot solve the legal right to a kindergarten place from 1 August this year should be therefore examine how some substantial claims for damages are entitled to.
A Munich firm prepared currently together with the Kita-in the respective municipalities pattern suits. Concerned parents should contact with the Kita-Verein in conjunction. The Munich lawyer and Chairman of the Kita Association Prof. Dr. Volker Thieler has already in 2012 the book the KITA lawsuit: claims by “Parents for not granting a daycare center: access – compensation reimbursement” written. There can check the parents about their rights and enforcement. The book is published in the Alexandra Publishing House.
The Tax Office informed home from Augsburg in the today’s business students who do an internships are not uncommon. In some cases, an internship is remunerated by the undertaking concerned, to compensate for the expenses of the trainees. According to a ruling of the German of the 09.06.2011 this revenue can affect however negative child benefit of the students. Accountant Gerhard clarifies home from Augsburg over the details of the judgment. A student, whose focal point was, in the residence of the parents took an internship in the United States to basis of the judgment of the BFH in the underlying case. There paid internship compensation and other income of the students, but its revenue exceeded the annual limit amount of 8004,00 euros. The exceeding of the limit amount through the income of the student, extinguished the claims of his parents on child support.
As a result, the parents submitted the cost of accommodation and meals incurred during an overseas internship and wanted them in the framework of the tax declaration claim. In principle, this is possible if the focal point of the student in the parental household and the student has rented an apartment on the place of study. Incurred expenses for rent and food can then be made within the double financial management. The issue in this case was, however, that is been abandoned their own residence in Germany and rented a residence in the United States. According to the Federal fiscal court, hereby the basics of double financial management and associated claims shall expire. The Augsburg accountant Gerhard home gives you like to more information and advise you what options you have to be able to assert claims in an internship abroad. Press contact tax law firm home contact person: Gerhard home accountant clinker mountain 9 86152 Augsburg phone: 0821/344 88-0 fax: 0821 / 344 88-50 E-Mail: Homepage: