- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

only $200 for SwissRo1ex, Breitling, Chanel, Cartier, Corum, IWC, Hublot, Omega, DeWitt, LouisVuiton, Panerai, Patek Philippe & .. hleed 6vq
by Pamella Simone 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

CheapRo1exWatches only $200 Biggest collection available: SwissRo1ex, Breitling, Chanel, Cartier, Corum, IWC, Hublot, Omega, DeWitt, LouisVuitton, Panerai, Patek Philippe & ....... Perfect Qua1ity & Swiss Movement, payment: accept Master & Visa, fast delivery Order Today: http://whycutts.net

1 0

Free Enhancement Sample with Any Order
by Viva V1agra 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Sustain your masculinity http://canadianpharma.myprivateidaho.com

1 0

En1arge YourPenis. {PenisSize}, The Safest & Most Effective Methods Of PenisEn1argement. Save your time and money! adplb yb
by Amber Romelia 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Do You Want A LargerPenis? Natural Herbal Pills(100% no side effect Guaranteeed!) Gives You 2-4 More 1nches With A $ Back Guaranteeed As Seen on TV product! Click here to Bigger your Weapon TODAY! http://zjhxiiuy.cn

1 0

Ценные бумаги. Новый закон от 25.11.2009 г. 281-ФЗ
by Isiah Gunter 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

ТЕМА: "Внимания изменения! Ценные бумаги, доли, займы и расчеты. В современной экономической ситуации. Налогообложение. Изменения в 2010 году. (Новый закон от 25.11.2009 г. 281-ФЗ.)" (Ч95) (Ч95) 792-2122; 742-91-98 Дата проведения: 24 Декабря консультант ИПБ России по налогам, преподаватель центра подготовки бухгалтеров и аудиторов МГУ им. Ломоносова, главный редактор журнала "Вопросы налогообложения кредитных организаций" автор книг "Налог на прибыль- 2008" и "Учет и налогообложение ценных бумаг и долей"-2008 г, "НДС-2009. Порядок исчисления и уплаты". "Ценные бумаги, доли и займы"-2009 г. Программа мероприятия: 1.Операции с собственными акциями (долями). 2.Налогообложение дивидендов в 2009 и 2010 г.г. 3.Операции с приобретенными ценными бумагами и долями: --первоначальная и последующая оценка, --введение контроля за ценой приобретения ценных бумаг с 2010 года, --порядок признания доходов в виде процентов; особенности признания доходов в виде процентов (дисконта) по векселям, --реализация и иное выбытие ценных бумаг и долей; отмена метода ЛИФО с 2010 г., --особенности признания убытка от реализации и иного выбытия ценных бумаг и долей, --налоговые последствия для инвестора при ликвидации эмитента (векселедателя), --особенности налогообложения ценных бумаг с номиналом в иностранной валюте. 4.Привлечение заёмных средств по договорам займа и кредитным договорам в рублях, условных единицах и в иностранной валюте, в том числе с выдачей собственных векселей. 5.Операции займа ценными бумагами с 2010 года (Федеральный закон от 25 ноября 2009 г. N 281-ФЗ "О внесении изменений в части первую и вторую Налогового кодекса Российской Федерации и отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации"): --исчисления НДС, НДФЛ и налога на прибыль по операциям с финансовыми инструментами срочных сделок (деривативами) и по операциям РЕПО. --В Законе о рынке ценных бумаг закрепляются понятия финансового инструмента, производного финансового инструмента, договора РЕПО. --Производным финансовым инструментом признается договор (кроме РЕПО) ... --материальная выгода при приобретении ценных бумаг по первой или второй части РЕПО --налоговые вычеты по НДФЛ при переносе на будущее убытков от операций с ценными бумагами и с деривативами (в отношении убытков, полученных начиная с 2010 г.). --налогообложение прибыли клиринговых организаций. --налоговый учет по срочным сделкам при методе начисления, а также по операциям РЕПО┘ 6.Долговые обязательства. Практические вопросы применения статьи 269 НК РФ по ограничению величины расходов в виде процентов по долговым обязательствам. 7.Расчёты по договорам: отмена переоценки выданных и полученных авансов в иностранной валюте с 2010 года, расчеты в условных единицах сомнительные долги и резервы безнадёжные долги- условия признания в составе убытков в налоговом учёте с учётом арбитражной практики применения пункта 2 статьи 266 НК РФ. уступка прав требования по договорам 8.НДС при наличии операций с ценными бумагами, предоставлении займов и при использовании векселей в качестве средства платежа. Переходный период в связи с отменой с 01.01.2009 г. перечисления НДС платёжным поручением при неденежных расчётах. 9.Ответы на вопросы и практические рекомендации. Стоимость участия: 7 200 рублей За более подробной информацuей обpащайтеcь по тел: (Ч95) 792-2122, (Ч95) 4Ч5-З968 5FZI0B0Q7X6FW

1 0

Give yourself the best present ever
by Luxury Gucci watches 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Give yourself the best present ever http://www.caqhcash.net

1 0

is your penisSIZE enough for you? Find Out The Truth Here. Read Actual User Testimonials jvxuk hxld
by Lacresha Dione 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Pills For A LargerPenis!! Fast Acting! works within 20 Minutes! Bigger, Harder, Longer LastingE_r_e_c_t_i_o_n_s! 1ncreaseSexual stamina & libido More powerful and longer0rgasms! Eliminate Pre-MatureEjaculation Enlarges yourStick to max length & girth! You can become a BIGGER MAN Today! click here.. http://zdfhjds.cn

1 0

Отношения между работником и работодателем
by Сокращение штатов 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Новшества в трудовом законодательстве: вопросы применения 17.12 Информацию можно получить по телефонам: (495) 742.9I 98 (Ч95) 4Ч5-4О/95 Программа занятий: Новшества в трудовом договоре и других вопросах отношений между работником и работодателем. Иностранец на работе - правовое положение. Практические нюансы по ведению кадровой документации. Государственная трудовая инспекция: полномочия, порядок проведения ответственность, штрафы. Коллективный трудовой договор: порядок заключения, регистрации √ плюсы работодателю и работнику. Основные аспекты увольнения Сокращение штата (сложные вопросы применения). Кого нельзя сокращать. Этапы сокращения. Особенности сокращения штатов для отдельных категорий работников. Документальное оформление. Выплаты при увольнении: как избежать проблем. Ответы на вопросы слушателей и практические рекомендации. Стоимость: 5 782 руб. Информацию можно получить по телефонам: (Моск. код) 742/9/1/9/8,\495/ 445-4О95 JB14NDX7A7V

1 0

0nline Pharmacy, Save on Medications from a safe and reliable canadian 0nline Pharmacy ifolka 7r
by Myrtis Mona 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills, Drug Info and More! * Over 25,000 Satisfied Customers * Visa & Master Card accepted Order Rx & Refills Online Today! http://cheaprx-meds.com.cn

1 0

Fwd: [IP] Re: Sotomayer challenges decisions that gave corporations "person"status
by R.A. Hettinga 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

Begin forwarded message: > From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > Date: December 13, 2009 3:45:38 AM GMT-04:00 > To: "ip" <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> > Subject: [IP] Re: Sotomayer challenges decisions that gave > corporations "person"status > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson(a)RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > Date: December 12, 2009 11:06:27 PM EST > To: dave(a)farber.net > Cc: ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> > Subject: Re: [IP] Sotomayer challenges decisions that gave > corporations "person"status > Reply-To: seth.johnson(a)RealMeasures.dyndns.org > > > Hi David -- for IP, if you wish. Somewhat lengthy, but I feel your > readers will find it very intriguing. What follows are some comments > I have been meaning to put together in response to this very exciting > note from Jim Warren in early October, pointing to Justice Sotomayor's > questioning corporate personhood in Citizens United v. FEC. > > I'm not a lawyer, but this is an area that's very interesting to me. > The best thing is that now that this question has been broached by a > Supreme Court Justice, almost regardless of the outcome of the case, > this whole area of questioning is now "legal tender," something that > we can discuss and examine without feeling like we're working the > fringes -- and I would submit that this has been very needful for a > very long time. In fact, this single development stands out as > changing my entire view of the prospects for this country under this > administration. > > I think folks will find the following observations highly intriguing: > > 1) The justices seem motivated by the question of corporate rights > > First off, before sitting to write this note, I looked at the > transcript last night > (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BR eargued%5D.pdf > ). > What strikes me is that the line of questioning from the Justices > seems to be specifically about the limits of the idea of giving > corporations rights like natural persons. They are looking at various > ways to draw lines, not necessarily wanting to go deep in the > precedents, but still questioning the simple stance that the matter > should be decided in terms of First Amendment "rights" of > corporations. > > Ginsburg asks the first question very specifically on this point, > noting that a corporation "is not endowed by its creator with > inalienable rights." This is an interesting phrasing that admits that > corporate "rights" would not be fundamental or natural, but it still > seems to allow for them being given rights by government acts (such as > the 14th amendment). The whole discussion is thus already about the > question of corporate rights, and this seems to me to indicate that > the Court's bringing the case up for re-argument was motivated > particularly by this question, or certainly questions closely > related. Sotomayor's comment therefore stands out more for its taking > the question back to very old court decisions, and for its indicating > how the notion of corporate rights derived from judicial action rather > than legislation or original notions of rights: "the courts [. . .] > created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as > persons, and there could be an argument made that that was the Court's > error to start with [. . .] that the Court imbued a creature of State > law with human characteristics." > > 2) Now, here are a couple of intriguing things to look at regarding > Clarence Thomas > > There was an odd article in the New York Times back in April about > Clarence Thomas speaking up before a group of students (Reticent > Justice Opens Up to a Group of Students: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1) > > I point at it because he makes a very strange comment about the legal > term of art, "dormant commerce clause" -- in fact the article's > authors state that they don't see the term's relationship to the > question he's addressing: > > The questions from students were read to Justice Thomas, > and the first one seemed to throw him off. Since the > Civil War, what has changed the way Americans view the > Constitution the most and why? an unidentified student > asked. > > Justice Thomas gave a rambling response, touching on the > Fourteenth Amendment, the rights of freed slaves, the > application of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states > and Justice John Marshall Harlans dissent in Plessy v. > Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision that endorsed > the doctrine of separate but equal. > > Im sure there are other things that have happened, he > said, wrapping up his answer. So I would have to say > just off the top of my head the Fourteenth Amendment. And > I bet you someones going to hear that and say, well, no, > its the dormant commerce clause or something. > > That was a curious aside. Few Americans could name the > dormant commerce clause, and it has no obvious connection > to how popular views of the Constitution changed after the > Civil War. > > > I found this entire article strange in many ways, but one thing that's > intriguing about this passage is that in fact the term "dormant > commerce clause" is *very* relevant to the question of corporate > rights. Before a certain point, this term meant nearly the exact > opposite of what it has come to mean more recently: it meant that if > the Federal legislature has not acted on a matter, then the Commerce > Clause remains dormant, not in effect, and State rules apply. You see > this sense of dormancy in Willson v. Black Bird in 1829. However, in > the 1851 Cooley v. Wardens case, "dormancy" or silence on the part of > Congress became an occasion for the Supreme Court to begin to fill in > the blanks. Then with the 1876 Welton v. Missouri case, "dormancy" > came to mean that the Supreme Court would assume that interstate > commerce must be unimpeded unless Congress said otherwise. > > This final assumption has underlaid many rulings since then (and > commerce clause rulings run all over the place, but over time this > assumption has tended to lead in a general direction). The result has > been that when any state law confronted a corporation in court that > felt their local regulation was impeding their ability to engage in > interstate commerce, not only did the court's ruling affect the > subject of the law (state taxes, local environmental rules, etc.), but > it also translated into notions of powers that corporations had -- > their "rights" as they appeared to exist within the context that was > given by the assumption of "free and untrammeled" commerce between > states, the assumption that has been carried in the "dormant commerce > clause" conception. > > If Justice Thomas thinks the "dormant commerce clause" has changed the > way Americans view the Constitution since the Civil War, then it seems > to me quite likely that this is what he has in mind. > > Another thing to keep in mind about Clarence Thomas has been described > very well by Jan Crawford Greenburg in the following video clip: > > Jan Crawford Greenburg on Justice Thomas's effect on the Supreme > Court: > http://www.youtube.com/v/s4vUpV6eDNk > > > Ms. Greenburg describes how Thomas is willing to override precedents > if he doesn't think they make sense, and is known to have flipped the > conservatives on the Court as he has done so -- they might originally > find a case one way based on more recent precedent, but then when they > read Thomas's brief, they flip the other way. > > Now, I haven't made a reading of Thomas's reasoning and philosophy -- > I'm just going by these indications. But I hardly think he could mean > anything else when he says the dormant commerce clause has changed > views of the Constitution. > > -- > > What seems possible to me given these factors is that the Supreme > Court may be confronting the corporate personhood/corporate "rights" > question in very fundamental terms. It seems quite plausible that we > will see a convergence or a mutual buttressing of the left and right > sides of the court, with the result being a lopsided affirmation of > the lower court's ruling disallowing the airing of the Hillary Clinton > documentary shortly before the election -- with a ruling that may > revise precedents profoundly. Or we may see a ruling that remands > while revising jurisprudence regarding corporate "rights" in > surprising and fundamental ways. > > Even if they make a more narrow ruling, I still see profound prospects > for this Court to address the question of corporate power in > surprising and fundamentally transformative ways, so we have great > reason to hope that we could find this court supporting recourse > against the corporate form. > > Anyway, these are the things that make me look upon this court with a > good degree excitement, even hope. If this question is about to be > taken up in the ways that seem possible, then we stand a chance of > regaining a government of, by and for the people. > > > Seth Johnson > > > -- > > [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc > > I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution > of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship > should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an > expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse > to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

1 0

only $200 for SwissRo1ex, Breitling, Chanel, Cartier, Corum, IWC, Hublot, Omega, DeWitt, LouisVuiton, Panerai, Patek Philippe & .. qjx tyk
by Felice Lourdes 13 Dec '09

13 Dec '09

CheapRo1exWatches only $200 Biggest collection available: SwissRo1ex, Breitling, Chanel, Cartier, Corum, IWC, Hublot, Omega, DeWitt, LouisVuitton, Panerai, Patek Philippe & ....... Perfect Qua1ity & Swiss Movement, payment: accept Master & Visa, fast delivery Order Today: http://jumpol.net

1 0