The Codes of Good Practice contains sections about measuring ownership, management control, employment, skills development, preferential procurement, enterprise development, socio-economic development, and qualifying small enterprises. Views Read Edit View history. The total contributions may not exceed 20 per cent of your net income.
For direct federal tax, the maximum deduction allowed is 1, francs for single tax payers, or 3, francs for married tax payers and those in registered partnerships. Contributions to public or exclusively non-profit organizations can be deducted from your taxable income.
The total contributions may not exceed 20 per cent of your net income. Money paid into a pillar 3a account is also tax-deductible. The maximum deduction for the tax year is 6, francs for employed persons. You can work out how much you can save here. Contributions to the second pillar may also be deducted. If any medical costs paid for out of your own pocket exceed a certain portion of your income, you can deduct them from your tax return. You might be able to claim for dental treatment, for example.
However, the limit is usually set quite high — in most cantons, it is 5 per cent of your net income. You can also deduct additional expenses arising as a result of a disability. You can reduce your taxable income by including any interest paid on mortgages and personal loans, but not the repayments.
Leasing costs are not allowed either. The cost of childcare by a nanny or at daycare is tax-deductible. Again, there is a maximum limit and parents must provide proof of payment. For direct federal tax, the limit is 10, francs per child per year. A social deduction can be claimed for children and other dependants.
For direct federal tax, the amount is 6, francs per child. Alimony and maintenance payments to ex-partners and children are tax-deductible. Maintenance payments intended for children can be deducted up to and including the month in the which the child comes of age. In most cantons, the tax return must be submitted by the end of March. This deadline can be extended provided you apply for the extension on time.
Taxes Tax deductions — 10 tips for minimizing your tax burden. One could then generally prefer the position taken by the UNIDROIT Principles because these Principles are designed for international commercial transactions and the CISG addresses also -- though not exclusively  -- international sales between professionals. Thus, for a vital point of the incorporation problem -- the question whether the user of the standard terms must bring them to the attention of the other party -- the sets of Principles do not provide a clear answer.
Under the CISG a minimum requirement for the incorporation of standard contract terms is a clear information in the respective declaration offer or acceptance or other communication which is constituent for the contract that the declaration and hence the contract shall be subject to specified standard terms.
If there is an offer or acceptance or a single contract document in writing it does not suffice that standard terms are printed on the back of a contract document which is signed only on the frontpage when there is no reference to the standard terms [page ] on the frontpage.
Nothing else applies if the contract is made by electronic communication. The reference to standard terms must then be contained in the constituent electronic declaration. If the contract is made orally a clear oral reference is necessary that specified standard terms shall be part of the contract. Even the mere handing over of standard terms can suffice to incorporate them into the contract if in the light of the circumstances this fact cannot be misunderstood as the expression of the intention that the contract be subject to these standard terms.
But there exist exceptions from the requirement that the other party must be informed of the fact that standard terms apply. No reference is required if the parties have established a practice between them that their dealings are regularly subject to the standard terms of one or both parties.
No reference is further required where an international usage is established that in a certain trade certain general contract conditions are always applied. A last exception where the reference requirement can be dispensed with encounters where both parties tried to incorporate their standard contract terms into the contract but where the terms differ -- at least those which are in dispute in the respective proceedings. The now prevailing view favours in such a case of conflicting standard terms the knock out rule which excludes all standard terms which contradict each other.
Each party is entirely free to include into its contractual declaration offer or acceptance whatever contents it likes. Therefore, also any kind of standard terms can be appended.
The incorporation of terms into a party's declaration is to the free discretion of this party. However, whether terms have become effectively part of the declaration of a party and their meaning is to be judged from the viewpoint of the already often mentioned reasonable person receiving the declaration in like circumstances Article 8 2 CISG.
In this respect, particularly the language of appended terms may pose a problem which is specifically addressed a little later. But for the valid incorporation of a party's standard terms into the contract the other party's consent is required. It is the general view that the consent need only comprise the fact that the contract is concluded subject to standard terms.
It need not specifically comprise the precise contents of each standard term. Insofar the possibility to know the contents suffices. The consent may be expressed by the consenting party's signature to the contract or other -- even oral -- express statement or by conduct from which a reasonable person would infer assent.
The most important and most disputed element concerning the incorporation of standard terms is the standard of information the other party must be given. As already mentioned the widely accepted starting point is the requirement. Put differently it is the question how far the information duty of the user of standard terms goes. The prevailing view requires him to make the terms available to the other party, generally by sending them or handing them over.
In that case the Court denied a valid incorporation because the standard terms had neither been sent nor handed over nor made available in another way to the other party. But there are also strong voices which vividly oppose the prevailing view and criticise the decision of the German Federal Court. The prevailing view is preferable. A contract partner who intends to make certain own provisions part of the contract acts in the own interest and can be expected to inform the other party of the contents of those terms in the sense that he makes them available to the other party.
It is then the discretion of that party to take real notice of the standard terms. But it would be a wrong and unfair risk allocation -- even in commercial transactions -- if a mere reference would suffice and if the other party had an obligation to search the contents of the standard terms before the conclusion of the contract at the peril that they become binding.
And since very often, if not generally both sides try to incorporate their own standard terms both users of those terms share the same burden to inform the other party. In international transactions the user's information duty is additionally justified because the used forms vary more [page ] widely than in purely domestic transactions.
Therefore, knowledge of the contents of the used standard terms cannot be simply presumed. It has also to be reminded that the Principles of European Contract Law which are based on a fair balance of interests leaving special consumer or merchants interests aside also require more than a mere reference in the contract in order to incorporate standard terms. The critique would, however, be justified if the decision of the German Federal Court and the prevailing view excluded any exception.
In the light of the circumstances of the case the Federal Court was right to require the user of the standard terms to transmit them to the other party. But neither this decision nor the prevailing view makes the user's information duty absolute. There exists a number of exceptions. The first one is the normal priority of practices between the parties and of international usages which follows from Article 9 1 and 2 CISG. It is selfunderstanding that this priority remains unaffected by the principle established in the Federal Court's decision.
Both practices and usages prevail not only with respect to the reference requirement  but also and in particular with respect to the information duty on the whole standard terms. Where, for instance, prior dealings between the parties had been conducted on the basis of certain standard terms then those terms need not be transmitted further and further. They apply without such transmission. A further exception is the situation that the other party already knows the contents of the standard terms.
Such knowledge cannot be presumed. But where it exists and where its existence can be proved  there is the user of the standard terms no longer obliged to inform the other party of their contents; a mere reference to them suffices to incorporate them into the contract. The case that the contractual declaration is made by electronic communication has to be specifically addressed. The just discussed principle applies here as well: It is rather unproblematic if the standard terms are attached to the contractual declaration.
Such attachment if it can be printed or otherwise stored by the addressee  gives sufficient notice of the terms. It is the addressee who has to print or electronically store the standard terms. More difficult is the case that the user refers merely to its website where the addressee can find the standard terms.
Partly, also such reference is regarded as sufficient;  partly. It will not always be easy to find the correct standard terms since the user may offer terms in different languages or only in its own language which the addressee may not understand. Furthermore, the standard terms on the website may be subject to various modifications. Sometimes the addressee may not be able to print or otherwise reproduce the standard terms. It is not the addressee's duty to avoid these risks.
This is the user's duty who is interested in the incorporation of the own standard terms into the contract. The reference to, and the availability of, standard contract terms must occur before or at the time when the contract is concluded.
A reference or standard terms on an invoice which is sent only after that date does in itself not modify the concluded contract. The later sending of standard terms can, however, constitute an offer to modify the conditions of the concluded contract and it can be accepted even by mere conduct.
An invoice serves normally other purposes than to change the conditions of the contract to which it belongs. Therefore, it is generally also no acceptance of the standard terms if the party who has received the invoice then acts on it, for instance pays or delivers. The so-called language problem or language risk deserves special attention.
It concerns the question in which language the reference to the standard terms and the terms themselves must be formulated in order to become effectively part of the respective declaration and finally of the contract. Generally, only if formulated in the language of the contract is the necessary reference to standard terms effective. However, if the reference is made in a language which the addressee or its representative in fact understands this constitutes a valid reference.
In principle, the same considerations apply to the language of the standard terms themselves. But if in a longstanding commercial relationship a party has always accepted standard terms in a language which is neither the contract language nor understood by this party then such conduct and the principle of good faith disallows this party to object to the terms.
Any account of the jurisprudence and the literature on a specific CISG problem can either stress the diversity of solutions and opinions or can highlight the fact that there exists generally a clearly prevailing view from which single or few voices deviate. I am rather sure that Albert H. Kritzer favours the second of these two approaches and his work contributed very much to the present situation that we can discern the clearly prevailing view with respect to almost every problem under the CISG.
With respect to the incorporation of standard terms into a CISG contract there is a clearly prevailing view as far as the principal duty of the user of such terms to inform the other party is concerned: The user is in principle obliged to bring the own standard terms to the attention of the other party.
In my view, this solution is based on sound policy considerations. However, some exceptions must be recognised, first, the priority of contrary practices and usages; and, second, that an addressee who already knows the contents of the standard terms which the user intends to incorporate need not be additionally informed of their contents.
See for a short survey over the laws of a number of European countries: Festschrift für Norbert Horn zum Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd v. Cases, Analysis and Unresolved Issues in the U. I 2nd ed C. Beck at Art 14 para 16; Magnus, U in J. Particularly in this sense: These are only the international conventions cited above. Kommentar supra fn 11 at Art 90 para 4 each with further references. Mutatis mutandis the same is true for Article 17 of the Brussels and Lugano Convention.
See for a survey of these matters:
Copyright © 2017 · All Rights Reserved · Maine Council of Churches