Sentences with phrase «special contribution requires»
The Court of Appeal confirmed that Holman J had accurately summarised the guidance in Miller and Charman save that he had been incorrect when stating «a special contribution requires a contribution by one unmatched by the other».
https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/ Not exact matches
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, but subject to such requirements as the legislature shall impose by general or special law, indebtedness contracted by any county, city, town, village or school district and each portion thereof from time to time contracted for any object or purpose for which indebtedness may be contracted may also be financed by sinking fund bonds with a maximum maturity of fifty years, which shall be redeemed through annual contributions to sinking funds established by such county, city, town, village or school district, provided, however, that each such annual contribution shall be at least equal to the amount required, if any, to enable the sinking fund to redeem, on the date of the contribution, the same amount of such indebtedness as would have been paid and then be payable if such indebtedness had been financed entirely by the issuance of serial bonds, except, if an issue of sinking fund bonds is combined for sale with an issue of serial bonds, for the same object or purpose, then the amount of each annual sinking fund contribution shall be at least equal to the amount required, if any, to enable the sinking fund to redeem, on the date of each such annual contribution, (i) the amount which would be required to be paid annually if such indebtedness had been issued entirely as serial bonds, less (ii) the amount of indebtedness, if any, to be paid during such year on the portion of such indebtedness actually issued as serial bonds.
A second, more strategic change would be to eliminate the special rule that ensures that members of Congress and their staffs can still get employer contributions for their insurance, even though the law requires them to purchase that coverage through the health law's insurance exchanges.
The district would provide $ 700 in cash and in - kind services per student for a school that AF would run and staff — not including the legally required contribution for transportation and special education services...»
Saying it couldn't raise enough money privately to launch the school, AF negotiated a «partnership» with Harries under which New Haven Public Schools (NHPS) would provide $ 700 in cash and in - kind services per student for a school that AF would run and staff (not including the legally required contribution for transportation and special education services).
Tip: Special Treatment of Employer Matches in Roth Plans The IRS requires that any employer match of contributions made to a Roth plan be placed in a pre-tax account and treated like matching assets in a traditional plan.
Unless your own state has some special requirement relating to its state tax incentives or a contribution matching program, you will not be required to report your beneficiary's college expenses directly to his or her school, to the 529 plan, or to anyone else.
Naming opportunities recognize major contributions made to help us to accomplish goals that require significant financial support such as building and renovation projects and the underwriting of special initiatives.
Paragrap 17 «Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least - cost 2 ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ̊C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ̊C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below;»
However, he reached the decision that the husband had not made «an unmatched special contribution of the kind and to the extent that the authorities require» and had not «displayed the exceptional and individual quality that the authorities require».
The husband also submitted that Holman J had been wrong when he said that special contribution «requires some exceptional and individual quality in the spouse concerned» which, he said, was contrary to Miller in which reference had been made to «exceptional earnings».
The Court of Appeal concluded that the husband's proposed three part test would simply serve to «complicate the analysis required when considering whether a party has made a special contribution, and, at worst, would unfairly elevate a financial contribution above other forms of contribution».