A senior finance executive in a private equity firm was visibly worried after he got a call from goods and services tax (GST) officer. The officer on the other end wanted to know more about the construction business that the company was involved in. It took some time for the executive to explain that the word “stone” in the brand name had nothing to do with the business the firm was into.

Few kilometres away from the PE firm’s office in Mumbai, the CFO of a finance company — that’s part of a major conglomerate — was nervous too. The CFO was just back from a meeting with the company’s GST assessing officer, and it left him in knots.

“How does one explain credit swap ratio, private placement, and other debt instruments in Hindi?” he asked his chartered accountant who had accompanied him. The GST officer too had some queries about some transactions that were carried out in the past few months.

As the government assigned GST assessing officers from a combined pool of erstwhile Sales Tax, Excise and Value Added Tax (VAT) officers, many companies are running scared. Earlier, state officers –mainly VAT — only dealt with manufacturing companies and service tax, and excise officials dealt with service companies including banks, PE firms, NBFCs and insurance companies.

But under GST — the common indirect tax — that distinction has disappeared and all officers now fall under one umbrella. So in several cases, erstwhile VAT officials have been asked to assess PE firms, banks and finance companies.

Many of these firms are rushing to their tax consultants and desperately asking them if they can in anyway change their assessing officers.

“There’s no mechanism prescribed by the legislation that enables taxpayers to voice their views on whether they would prefer being assessed by the existing authorities.

Several service providers, whose business models are well known to the central authorities and have now been assigned to the state authorities, are apprehensive that the state authorities will take time to develop expertise on taxation of services,” said MS Mani, Partner, Deloitte India.

Industry trackers say that for indirect taxes, the importance of assessment officers become crucial and dealing with them is not just an annual affair like in the case of income tax. “One has to deal with officials for refunds, credits, monthly taxes, etc. The worry is many VAT officials will take some time before they could understand nitty-gritty of our business,” the senior finance executive in the PE firm said.

The government has used a formula for allocation of assessment officers and dividing work among central and state officers. And this is worrying not just for PE firms or banks, but also some of the other traders.

Take the instance of an Indian shoe manufacturer that has a turnover of about Rs 1,000 crore: the manufacturer has got a clean chit from the VAT officials for the past five years, but is now worried about the heightened scrutiny.

Another diamond exporter based in Crawford Market in Mumbai has also sent out an SOS to his tax advisors. The exporter, like the shoe manufacturer, wants former state officers to assess his accounts, and not central officers.

The manufacturer has asked his tax advisors to figure out a way to change his assessing officer back to what they were. Many say that these worries are somewhat unfounded. “Many companies have been approaching and making pleas of changing their assessing officers, which is not possible. Every officer has undergone training and there is no need to worry,” a government official in the know clarified.

“Most former VAT officials had until now dealt with indirect taxes on goods and they would now be dealing with services. Although many of these officials were given training, there would be a learning curve and this has worried several services companies that have been assigned to state authorities,” said Sachin Menon, national head, indirect tax, KPMG India.

The worries may not be unfounded. Tax experts point out that indirect tax is a complex subject. “One of my clients, an IT firm, had received a notice because the tax officer wanted a copy of an airfare receipt,” he laughs. “However, I would say many officers would go easy on companies whose business models they don’t understand, and it may just be a good thing.”

But not everyone is convinced as some officers are already asking questions which are making some companies jittery. Take the example of a law firm. The tax officer wanted to know about each transaction leading to revenue of the firm (although law firms are exempted from GST). The officer wanted to know how come the head of the law firm was charging a fee of Rs 2 lakh for “merely talking for half an hour” from a client, but not charging anything from another client with whom she had spoken for two hours.

“It’s not the law alone, the procedure of indirect taxes, especially GST, is complex. It would have been great if officers who have no experience were allotted smaller companies or firms for initial few years,” a senior tax advisor said.

Go to Source

SAN JOSE, Calif., Jan 05, 2018 (BUSINESS WIRE) —
One of the nation’s top consumer-rights law firms has filed a class-action
lawsuit against Apple for secretly installing a feature to
intentionally slow down performance of many iPhone models, according to
Hagens Berman.

The suit, filed Jan. 5, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, seeks compensation for degraded
performance in affected phones, as well as compensation for those who
purchased new iPhones (often at the urging of Apple representatives) to
alleviate Apple’s secretive and unauthorized slowdown of their phones.
It also seeks compensation for those who paid full price for battery
replacements in affected phones before Apple began offering them at a
reduced price.

If you own an iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus or SE, find
out more about the lawsuit and sign up here.

“It wasn’t until Apple was faced with consumer outcry and bad press that
it finally chose to come clean about its secretive installation of
performance-limiting software on millions of iPhones,” said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. “To add insult to injury,
Apple’s answer to its loyal customers is ‘Pay us $29 for a replacement
battery to fix our covered-up slowdown.’ Consumers deserve a better
answer.”

Apple’s actions left consumers without critical information. Many were
likely led to believe that their affected iPhones were suffering
performance issues because they were essentially obsolete, and so they
purchased new iPhones from Apple. But instead, the slowness they
experienced was due to Apple’s secret “feature.”

Berman said, “We’re willing to fight them again to ensure iPhone owners
are given just payback.” In 2015, the firm achieved a $450 million
settlement against Apple and the nation’s largest publishing companies
for artificially inflating the price of e-books. Apple fought the case
tooth-and-nail, sending it to the Supreme Court, where Apple lost.

The class action details a longstanding issue with iPhone performance,
leading up to Apple’s installation of the performance-docking feature in
iOS updates. In 2016, many iPhone owners had already grown dismayed with
their iPhone performance, as reports surfaced of random, unexpected and
disruptive shutdowns of certain iPhones, the suit states. Apple
cryptically covered-up the issue and refused to fully inform the public
of the root of the widespread shutdowns, according to the suit.

In more recent news, a researcher found evidence that Apple had embedded
performance-degrading features into iOS updates, likely as a means to
prevent these shutdowns. Apple’s performance-limiting features were
snuck into routine updates, unbeknownst to iPhone owners.

The suit says Apple handed iPhone owners an empty apology and late
explanation, stating that “users may experience longer launch times for
apps and other reductions in performance.” In this same breath, Apple
announced it would “reduc[e] the price of an out-of-warranty iPhone
battery replacement by $50 – from $79 to $29 – for anyone with an iPhone
6 or later whose battery needs to be replaced” though the end of 2018.

Find out more about the class-action
lawsuit against Apple for its iPhone slowdown.

About
Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law
firm with 11 offices across the country. The firm has been named to the
National Law Journal’s Plaintiffs’ Hot List eight times. More about the
law firm and its successes can be found at https://www.hbsslaw.com.
Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180105005884/en/

SOURCE: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP”>
Go to Source

A senior finance executive in a private equity firm was visibly worried after he got a call from goods and services tax (GST) officer. The officer on the other end wanted to know more about the construction business that the company was involved in. It took some time for the executive to explain that the word “stone” in the brand name had nothing to do with the business the firm was into.

Few kilometres away from the PE firm’s office in Mumbai, the CFO of a finance company — that’s part of a major conglomerate — was nervous too. The CFO was just back from a meeting with the company’s GST assessing officer, and it left him in knots.

“How does one explain credit swap ratio, private placement, and other debt instruments in Hindi?” he asked his chartered accountant who had accompanied him. The GST officer too had some queries about some transactions that were carried out in the past few months.

As the government assigned GST assessing officers from a combined pool of erstwhile Sales Tax, Excise and Value Added Tax (VAT) officers, many companies are running scared. Earlier, state officers –mainly VAT — only dealt with manufacturing companies and service tax, and excise officials dealt with service companies including banks, PE firms, NBFCs and insurance companies.

But under GST — the common indirect tax — that distinction has disappeared and all officers now fall under one umbrella. So in several cases, erstwhile VAT officials have been asked to assess PE firms, banks and finance companies.

Many of these firms are rushing to their tax consultants and desperately asking them if they can in anyway change their assessing officers.

“There’s no mechanism prescribed by the legislation that enables taxpayers to voice their views on whether they would prefer being assessed by the existing authorities.

Several service providers, whose business models are well known to the central authorities and have now been assigned to the state authorities, are apprehensive that the state authorities will take time to develop expertise on taxation of services,” said MS Mani, Partner, Deloitte India.

Industry trackers say that for indirect taxes, the importance of assessment officers become crucial and dealing with them is not just an annual affair like in the case of income tax. “One has to deal with officials for refunds, credits, monthly taxes, etc. The worry is many VAT officials will take some time before they could understand nitty-gritty of our business,” the senior finance executive in the PE firm said.

The government has used a formula for allocation of assessment officers and dividing work among central and state officers. And this is worrying not just for PE firms or banks, but also some of the other traders.

Take the instance of an Indian shoe manufacturer that has a turnover of about Rs 1,000 crore: the manufacturer has got a clean chit from the VAT officials for the past five years, but is now worried about the heightened scrutiny.

Another diamond exporter based in Crawford Market in Mumbai has also sent out an SOS to his tax advisors. The exporter, like the shoe manufacturer, wants former state officers to assess his accounts, and not central officers.

The manufacturer has asked his tax advisors to figure out a way to change his assessing officer back to what they were. Many say that these worries are somewhat unfounded. “Many companies have been approaching and making pleas of changing their assessing officers, which is not possible. Every officer has undergone training and there is no need to worry,” a government official in the know clarified.

“Most former VAT officials had until now dealt with indirect taxes on goods and they would now be dealing with services. Although many of these officials were given training, there would be a learning curve and this has worried several services companies that have been assigned to state authorities,” said Sachin Menon, national head, indirect tax, KPMG India.

The worries may not be unfounded. Tax experts point out that indirect tax is a complex subject. “One of my clients, an IT firm, had received a notice because the tax officer wanted a copy of an airfare receipt,” he laughs. “However, I would say many officers would go easy on companies whose business models they don’t understand, and it may just be a good thing.”

But not everyone is convinced as some officers are already asking questions which are making some companies jittery. Take the example of a law firm. The tax officer wanted to know about each transaction leading to revenue of the firm (although law firms are exempted from GST). The officer wanted to know how come the head of the law firm was charging a fee of Rs 2 lakh for “merely talking for half an hour” from a client, but not charging anything from another client with whom she had spoken for two hours.

“It’s not the law alone, the procedure of indirect taxes, especially GST, is complex. It would have been great if officers who have no experience were allotted smaller companies or firms for initial few years,” a senior tax advisor said.

Go to Source

CHICAGO, Jan 05, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Stoltmann Law Offices is pleased to announce the addition of seasoned attorney Jeffrey Dorman to its Commercial Litigation Group. The Commercial Litigation Group handles plaintiffs’ business and class litigation primarily on a contingent fee basis. Practice areas of the Commercial Litigation Group include: Class Action; Breach of Contract Claims; Business Tort Litigation; Commercial Real Estate; Defamation; Libel and Slander; Employment; Wage and Overtime; Intellectual Property; Professional Malpractice; and Shareholder and LLC Member Disputes.

For nearly 40 years, Jeffrey Dorman has combined experience as a trial lawyer with academic and professional training in econometrics, mathematics, and computer programming to create excellent results in complex litigation.

Prior to joining Stoltmann Law Offices, Jeff was a partner at Freeborn & Peters focusing on complex litigation. Jeff spent much of his career at one of the world’s largest law firms defending complex class actions and antitrust litigation. Jeff was a partner at Sonnenschen Nath & Rosenthal (now SNR Dentons) until 2000 where his areas of specialization included antitrust litigation and counseling; creation of statistical and mathematical models for use in litigation; complex business litigation; and class action litigation.

He has been recognized by Leading Lawyers Network as a “Leading Lawyer in Antitrust Law and Commercial Litigation” and has received a Superior Achievement Award as an antitrust attorney for the United States Department of Justice.

“Jeff has been a mentor or mine for years and it’s a privilege to continuing working with Jeff as part of the Stoltmann Law Offices Commercial Litigation Group,” said Mr. Loftus. “Our clients will greatly benefit from his sage guidance and decades of experience.”

Stoltmann Law Offices Commercial Litigation Group is the commercial litigation sector of Stoltmann Law Offices. Based in Chicago, Illinois the group represents clients in all areas of commercial and financial disputes, class action, business breakup, anti-trust, intellectual property, employment, and real estate. For more information on the Commercial Litigation Group, please visit http://www.litigationattorneyblog.com.

Stoltmann Law Offices
Alexander Loftus Esq.
o: 312-332-4200
10 S. LaSalle
35th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
www.LitigationAttorneyBlog.com
Alex@Stoltlaw.com

Copyright (C) 2018 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go to Source

Go to Source

BERLIN, Germany – At the start of the year, Germany introduced a controversial new law, that forces social media firms to remove hate speech or face fines up to 50 million euros.

The controversial law, called the Network Enforcement Act was introduced on January 1 and comes at a time when U.S. social media companies have scaled up operations in Germany.

With the implementation of the new law, the country has turned into a testbed for whether tech firms can be relied on to tell the difference between free speech and hate speech.

Soon after the law was implemented, Facebook and Twitter fitted their German websites with additional features for flagging controversial content after having spent months hiring and training moderators to cope with the Network Enforcement Act.

Users who want to report offensive content, will find a way contravening not just the platform’s own community standards but the new law, which also applies to sites like Youtube, Instagram and Snapchat.

Facebook said that it started hiring German-language moderators before the law was approved and has 1,200 people reviewing flagged content from “deletion centres” in Berlin and Essen. 

They make up a sixth of the social media giant’s global moderation team.

Twitter meanwhile is reported to have hired more German-language moderators with a background in law but still operates from its European headquarters in Dublin.

However, figures on how the law has affected the number of deletions won’t be published until June.

Yet, several controversial deletions and suspensions in the law’s first few days have bolstered critics who have argued that the law will impact free speech, as companies try to avoid fines.

Germany has passed some of the world’s toughest laws around hate speech in the aftermath of the second world war.

These include prison sentences for Holocaust denial and inciting hatred against minorities. 

Further, in recent years, with the increase in the number of terror attacks being planned online, politicians have increasingly voiced concerns about a relative lack of accountability online.

The NezDG law in Germany now ensures that online platforms face fines of up to 50 million euros if they do not remove “obviously illegal” hate speech and other postings within 24 hours of receiving a notification. 

Further, the law provides a seven-day period for removal of “illegal” content.

In summer last year, Facebook carried out an average of 15,000 deletions in Germany each month.

The law developed by the Social Democrat-run justice ministry, has come under attack from both sides of the political spectrum. 

The AfD has complained of “Stasi methods” reminiscent of censorship in communist East Germany.

Critics on the left meanwhile have accused the state of outsourcing work to private companies that should be carried out by judicial bodies.

Germany’s biggest newspaper too has called for the NetzDG to be scrapped. 

An op-ed in tabloid Bild stated, “The law against online hate speech failed on its very first day. It should be abolished immediately,” adding that the law was turning AfD politicians into “opinion martyrs.”

However, Heiko Maas, the justice minister, who is seen as the key driver of the law, has defended himself against the criticism, by saying, “Incitement to murder, threats, insults and incitement of the masses or Auschwitz lies are not an expression of freedom of opinion but rather attacks on the freedom of opinion of others.”

Go to Source

‘);
} else {
$(“.fotorama-caption”).addClass(“remove_caption”);
}
})
.fotorama();

Go to Source

By ABIUD OCHIENG
More by this Author

Related Stories

Go to Source

The Trump administration’s decision to enforce federal anti-marijuana laws has sent shivers through users, medical patients and businesses encouraged by the growing number of states legalizing the drug.

Marijuana

Cannabis growers, sellers and financial institutions supporting them, a roughly $7 billion industry, are particularly under threat by the move, and the lack of clarity on how toughly federal anti-pot laws will be enforced will make it difficult for any to build their young businesses, industry experts said.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday rescinded the policies of the former Obama administration that made clear the federal government would not challenge local laws that were contrary to federal anti-pot statutes.

Announcing a “return to the rule of law,” Sessions called on the 94 US attorneys around the country to enforce the federal laws, which classify marijuana as a dangerous narcotic like heroin.

– Pot businesses nervous –

People in the industry are very concerned, including those in the 29 states and the District of Columbia able to buy marijuana for medical use, and those in the six states that have begun producing and selling pot for recreational use, said Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, the key national lobby for reforming marijuana laws.

“The marijuana business community, in the event of increased federal enforcement, it is going to be the most threatened,” he said.

“But the collateral consequence is to the consumers for those businesses. If their friendly local medical marijuana dispensary is closed down, that means they can’t get the best medicine their doctor recommended for them.”

Vendors in the six Western states which have begun recreational sales — Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska and California — were set on edge, not knowing if the policy shift presages a tough crackdown.

“We’re going crazy right now,” said one marketer at a Las Vegas marijuana shop, declining to be identified.

– Policy remains vague –

Sessions did not explain how the new stance would be enforced, saying it was up to the US attorneys in the areas.

Some, like Bob Troyer, the US attorney for Colorado, made clear there will be no change in his stance locally.

In Arkansas, which is in the process of launching a medical marijuana industry this year, Scott Hardin, spokesman for the state finance department, said that for them, Sessions’ decision hasn’t changed anything.

“We determined that we’re going to move forward,” he said, expecting that ultimately at least 30,000 people will sign up for medical marijuana.

“What we are looking for is that formal direction.”

But with most of the federal prosecutors being appointed by the Trump administration, and some chosen by longtime cannabis opponent Sessions himself, Strekal said it was easy to imagine some taking a hard line.

“A US attorney who might have the inkling to play cowboy or make a name for themselves” could try to shut down pot farms, stores and dispensaries that local laws consider legal, he said.

Furthermore, federal prosecutors can use “RICO” laws aimed at organized crime to threaten others linked to the industry, whether banks, equipment suppliers or transport firms.

The decision sent the shares of publicly-listed pot industry firms, mostly industrial-sized cannabis farmers, tumbling between 13 and 31 percent Thursday. Most only recovered half of that loss Friday, and industry analysts said they could face more difficulties obtaining financing in the uncertain climate left by the Sessions decision.

The decision sparked fresh pressure on Congress to act to remove marijuana from the official federal list of dangerous drugs, which would ease the threat to pot users and businesses.

Legislators from states where cannabis is legal blasted Sessions for the policy shift.

“Our country is in the midst of an opioid crisis and the AG is going to divert resources to cracking down on medical marijuana? This is either willfully ignorant or cowing to corporate greed on behalf of pharma special interest profits,” said New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

The post Trump marijuana policy reversal stokes fears in pot firms, users appeared first on Vanguard News.

Continue reading…

Go to Source

The challenging business landscape in 2017 has left at least 12 companies with depressed bottom lines as the chief executives turn focus to the new year.

Company filings show that in the best case scenario, the firms will lose Sh8.12 billion from their earnings in a year that was punctuated by a lengthy political season.

ALSO READ:

Bitcoin recovers some losses after its worst week since 2013

Three of them – Mumias Sugar, Unga Group and Deacons – are in negative position even as they make another leap of faith that 2018 will turn around their fortunes.

Mumias Sugar suffered a loss of Sh4.71 billion at the end of the financial year ended June 2016. However, in mid-2017, the western Kenya-based miller announced a loss of Sh6.77 billion, being 42 per cent worse off than the previous year.

Acute shortage

The performance was blamed on acute sugar shortage that saw the amount of cane crushed drop by more than half.

Deacons East Africa, which deals in fashion-related goods and services, expects to widen its losses from Sh276 million to a least Sh345 million.

The drawback, the firm said, was due to political uncertainty, drought and non-performance and closure of some branches.  

In the same year, Unga Group also announced a profit warning and went ahead to sink into a loss of Sh32.3 million. This was in contrast to a profit of Sh508.8 million announced in the previous financial year.

Its dismal performance was blamed on adverse weather and “difficulties in the modern trade.”

ALSO READ:

Flame Tree issues profit warning

Yesterday, Britam, one of the major insurance firms issued a warning to prepare its investors that profits for the financial year ended December 2017 are going to be at least 25 per cent lower than in 2016.

“The expected decline in earnings is mainly due to a change, in 2016, of valuation method of the long term liabilities to gross premium valuation methodology from the previously applied net premium valuation,” said the company.

In the banking sector, Housing Finance Corporation has joined Standard Chartered Bank and Family Bank in issuing profit warnings. Combined, in the best case scenario, the three will see their full-year earnings fall by about Sh2.6 billion against the 2016 returns. Standard Chartered said its performance will be weighed down by the interest rate cap law that took away the power of banks to freely price the cost of credit.

The same reason was given by the two other lenders even as they cited a challenging election year. In construction, market leader Bamburi Cement also expects to lose at least Sh1.5 billion when compared to the Sh5.89 billion posted in 2016.  

“The expected decrease is mainly attributable to weaker performance of business as a result of contraction of the cement market partly due to poor private sector credit growth, drought conditions together with effects of pre- and post-election periods,” the firm said. Others who are sailing in the same boat of profit warnings include BOC Group, Nairobi Business Ventures and Flame Tree Group. With companies having different financial cycles and with half-year performance for many of them having dipped, more warnings could follow.

Go to Source