The Rich Are At It Again; Cheating on Their Taxes - The Bar Refaeli Story

There is a long list of celebrities who cheated on their taxes. Considering their net income, it’s quite amusing that they avoid paying taxes since they are not exactly poverty-stricken.

The latest culprit is Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli. The woman dodged serving in the army by entering into a fake marriage, so it should not come as a big surprise that she stiffed her government who uses the funds to protect its citizens with e.g., iron dome.

Bar Refaeli tried to weasel out of the allegations by claiming that she lived abroad. Well, that did not exactly fly - the Israel Tax Authority had the woman arrested for allegedly evading millions of dollars in taxes. She was grilled for 12 hours.

As a supermodel, she received a lot of freebies for which she should have paid income tax on. She didn’t, just enjoying her perks such as luxury apartments and cars without any accountability. The woman also stayed in luxury apartments registered under her mother and brother’s names, and also used Range Rover and Lexus cars free of charge. The Israel Tax Authority notices that she enjoyed unreported income amounted to “dozens of millions of shekels.”

The Refaeli women defended themselves, claiming that the model lived outside of Israel. Needless to say, that did not fly. The Israel Tax Authorities were not amused, showing that DiCaprio’s ex and her Mummy enjoyed “celebrity discounts” such as free interior decorating, which they never reported.

The homes of both Refaeli women were raided this week. On Thursday, they were arrested and released on bail. They were forced to fork over their passports and can’t leave Israel without permission for 180 days. Quel horreur!

Moral of the story - don’t cheat on your taxes! It’s just not worthwhile. Tax authorities all over the world have long memories, unlimited resources, and the tenacity to hunt you down. Do yourself a favor, just pay your dues - especially if you are an egomaniac celebrity! (Or any member of their money-hungry posse)

(Image courtesy of K Bar from TA, IL at Flickr)

Could Dutch Police Be Allowed To Hack Suspects Very Soon?

A new Dutch law proposed to the Dutch parliament would allow Dutch police to hack suspects (yes, even via WhatsApp!). Needless to say, it created a firestorm. Those opposing it consider the concept law to be a breach of privacy, while supporters applaud it as an important step towards security. The main question is: why is this new law necessary? And what does this Hack Law entail?

Funny enough, nobody really knows. Although the new Hack Law has been announced by the government, the Dutch House of Representatives still has to approve.

What is known, that the police should have extensive leeway to hack suspects as part of the broader picture to fight terrorism. Furthermore, the threshold for allowing police hacking should be low in order for it to be effective.

However, some academics, such as Professor Nico van Eijk, reason that hacking is not really an anti-terrorism measure. (Personally, I disagree).
De Dutch intelligence services AIVD and MIVD that are fighting terrorism, are already allowed to hack. Therefore, granting the same rights to the police would just be an extension of an existing and accepted practice.

It is not clear yet what the parameters for hacking by the police will be. Funny enough, the proposed concept is already two years old; the threshold for tapping into Internet and telephone traffic is therefore far from new.

Opponents of the concept law claim that the police could use security vulnerabilities in software on the devices of suspects. That might be true, but security vulnerabilities could also be used by hackers; just compare it to a faulty lock on your windows that allows crooks as well as the police to easily enter your premises.

Will the concept law pass? Quite likely, considering the recent attacks in Paris and Beirut.

This blog post was written by Debra De-Jong of Tip Top Lawyer

 http://www.tiptoplawyer.com

Who Owns the Intellectual Property of Emails?

In this digital age, it’s a burning question - who owns the right of the content of an email?

First of all, we have to distinguish between owning the email (substantial right) and having an IP right (immaterial right).

This is not just legalese babble - to illustrate: a printed photo on a canvas will let the person own the canvas with image, but not the IP rights to that image.

To enjoy the benefits of copyright protection, a work needs to meet several conditions.

1. The work result from a creative activity
2. The work must be expressed in a physical form
3. The work must be original
When it comes to emails, the first and the third requirements are hard to meet. Just to illustrate, an email that states that a head of state is a #@!$%&! is hardly the fruit of creativity. Moreover, the content is quite likely not even original but harvested from social media. 

When we look at ownership, we are also in a gray area. Your email is on your computer, so you (and your heirs in case you keel over) own it. However, your rights are limited by those of third parties, namely those of the sender of the email and/or its employees (especially if it concerns a public company).

Furthermore, emails in general do not fall in the category of “confidential information”. However, depending on specific content, they could be considered to be confidential. This is normally the case for emails that contain information that could harm the company if made public.

 Last but not least: let’s discuss privacy. Does making the email public harm anyone’s privacy? If an email reveals private information, it’s an infringement. If the information is already in the public domain, not so much.

Please note that we are dealing with a grey area here. If you are a company and you are not sure, consult a lawyer. It’s worthwhile!

Disclaimer: This blog post was written for general information purposes only, and is not aimed at giving any legal advice in any way, shape or form.

©2015 Tip Top Lawyer

Be Careful Whom You Review - Amazon Is Suing Fiverr Reviewers for False Reviews

It seems like a dream come true. To promote your business or product, you turn to Fiverr et al and purchase the services of review writers to hammer out and post great endorsements for your product and/or services.

A true win-win, agreed? Not exactly, Amazon got wind of the fake reviews and took action. It is suing 1,114 people that it suspects of posting fake reviews on its website, stating: "While small in number, these reviews can significantly undermine the trust that consumers and the vast majority of sellers and manufacturers place in Amazon, which in turn tarnishes Amazon’s brand."

In its lawsuit, Amazon names 1,114 defendants as “John Does” (which I assume also includes “Jane Does”). The reason for that is simple: Amazon does not know their real names, since many suppliers on Fiverr use a “username” to sell their services. It seems that there are a slew of providers on Fiverr.com who offer to write and distribute false reviews. More the pity, since my own experience with Fiverr for graphic design and video clips has been more than excellent! Amazon has also included the defendants' account pseudonyms in its law suit, just to be safe. In general, the company is seeking a judgement to uncover those real identities.

Amazon explains its legal action by stating: "Amazon is bringing this action to protect its customers from this misconduct, by stopping defendants and uprooting the ecosystem in which they participate.”

This legal action is just the latest in a slew of Amazon law suits against several websites suspected of selling fake reviews. As a lawyer and entrepreneur, I don’t blame Amazon at all. Let’s face it - Amazon has been working hard to achieve high quality of service (QoS), and individuals/companies buying rave reviews does not help (to say the least!).

Fiverr itself is not being sued and works together with Amazon to solve the problem. In the complaint, Amazon made it clear that it is not blaming Fiverr. “Although Amazon has successfully requested removal of similar listings from Fiverr in the past, the removal of individual listings does not address the root cause of the issue or serve as a sufficient deterrent to the bad actors engaged in creating and purchasing fraudulent product reviews.”

Needless to say, Fiverr is not happy as well and stated: "We have worked closely together to remove services that violate our terms of use, and respond promptly to any reports of inappropriate content. We facilitate close to a million transactions a month, across more than 100 categories of services, such as graphic design, copywriting, voiceover, multimedia editing and coding. These services are being consumed by businesses who depend on them to thrive."

To read the full court filing, follow this link Amazon Complaint

Debra De-Jong - Owner of Tip Top PR and Tip Top Lawyer

In Case You Ever Wondered - A Tablet Is a Computer, Not a Communication Device

You might scratch you head why this variation of “to be or not to be, that’s the question” is relevant. As it turns out, it’s extremely important as the following story will show you.

Way back in 2010, the Dutch branch of RTL wanted to do something nice for its 664 employees and gave each one of them a brand-new iPad as a Christmas present. As the saying goes: “no good deed goes unpunished” and RTL was hit with a tax bill of over Euro 320,000. The reason: the Dutch Tax Authorities decided that the free iPad fitted in the category: “computers and similar devices” which would mean that RTL had to pay income tax on it.

This came as a nasty surprise to RTL that assumed that an iPad should be considered as a ‘telephone, internet and similar communication device’, which is exempted from Dutch income tax.

Needless to say, the iPad story ended up in the Dutch courts. The District Court ruled that the iPad is indeed more a computer than a communication device. The Court of Appeal overruled this decision and ruled that the iPad is in fact a communication device since “inserting the text alone on a touchscreen is already a daunting task, which shows that a tablet is indeed different from a computer. The main purpose of a tablet is to communicate”. Ergo, the Dutch Tax Authorities could kiss their income tax revenues goodbye.

The Dutch Tax Authorities did not take this lightly and turned to the Dutch Supreme Court. This body only rules on principles of law. This means that they are never confused by facts, but need to decide the following: is an iPad under the law a computer or a communication device?

RTL got the short end of the stick: the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the tablet is (fiscally speaking) not a communication device, but a computer. According to the Dutch Supreme Court, it is not relevant at all what characteristics could apply (a not so supple dig at the ruling of the Dutch Court of Appeal). The Dutch Supreme Court reasoned that according to the law, the first consideration should be if the device could be classified as a ‘computer’. Only if it is clear that this would not be case, should one consider if the iPad might classify as ‘communication device’.

According to the Dutch Supreme Court, jurisprudence indicate that the term ‘computers and similar devices’ entail ‘electronic equipment that entirely or partly are designed for task

s that can also be conducted by a computer’. The legislator quoted examples such as digital calendars, mini notebooks and GPS tracking devices. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that an iPad fits this description perfectly, and the tablet therefore does not qualify as being a communication device.

This landmark ruling will have far-reaching consequences for many employers - they can expect hefty income tax bills from the Dutch Tax Authorities.

This blog post is based on articles translated from Dutch to English by Tip Top Translator and edited by Tip Top Lawyer

Investigating the Case of the Earliest Known Murder Victim

A 430,000-year-old skull discovered in a Spanish cave bears evidence of deliberate, lethal blunt force trauma, illustrating that violence has been a fundamental part of human nature since the beginning of times. Now there is evidence to back it up.

In a cave in northern Spain, archeological detectives discovered the remains of a 430,000-year-old skull bearing what appears to be lethal, deliberately inflicted blunt force trauma. If the scientists’ interpretation of the wound is accurate, the skull represents the earliest known murder.

To piece this dark story together, an international team of researchers had to assemble the evidence—literally. The ancient hominin skull, called Cranium 17, was discovered broken into 52 pieces, buried under layers of clay in a deep pit within a cavern in the Atapuerca Mountains. The specific site in question, Sima de los Huesos (“Pit of Bones”), was discovered in 1984 and contains the remains of at least 28 early Neanderthal individuals from the Middle Pleistocene, a period ranging from about 781,000 to 126,000 years ago.

The only way to access the site is through a vertical chimney that extends more than 40 feet straight down. Scientists are not certain how the bodies came to be there, but many suspect that they were purposefully deposited. Although little is known about Cranium 17, including the gender of the person it once belonged to, this skull stood out from all the other remains found in the pit. Scientists determined that the person died as a young adult, and the skull features two prominent holes in what once was the forehead, just above the left eye socket.

To read the full article, click on http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/investigating-case-earliest-known-murder-victim-180955409/#qyiYmBmlqdrEVZjd.99

(Iimage courtesy of Javier Trueba/Madrid Scientific Films)

Artist Gets The Upper Hand Against Fast-food Giant Chik-fil-A – With Kale

Who knew that kale could trigger legal action? It all started way back in 2000. Bo Muller-Moore is an artist located in Montpelier, Vermont. One of his farmer friend (who grows the leafy vegetable aka as kale known for its nutritional value) asked him to make three T-shirts for his family for $10 each. He did and the “eat more kale” caught on.

With approval of the farmer friend, Muller-Moore began putting it on clothing and bumper stickers. He has been using the phrase ever since to promote local agriculture. He prints the phrase in silk-screen on T-shirts and sweatshirts and also prints it on bumper stickers that are used all around Vermont and even in other states. In the summer of 2011, Muller-Moore decided to trademark the phrase.

Once fast-food giant Chik-fil-A learned about the filing, it sent Muller-Moore a letter telling him to stop using the phrase, claiming that it would confuse the public since the Chik-fil-A slogan is "eat mor chikin." The fast food giant cited 30 examples of other companies and individuals who wanted to the "eat more" phrase and withdrew it after Chik-fil-A objected.

In contrast to other before him, Muller-Moore did not cave in. He stated "In our case, we said we're not going to cease and desist until a federal judge tells us to and as far as the trademark goes, I never wavered from the idea that I deserved protection from copycat artists."

His public fight drew the support of Shumlin as well as a team of pro-bono lawyers, including law students from the University of New Hampshire legal clinic.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Muller-Moore his application to trademark "eat more kale".

Needless to say, the artist was over the moon, stating "I'd like to think that maybe some persistence and polite defiance, you know, and proving to them [the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] that we were in it for the long haul. If it took us a decade, we're going to fight for a decade."

Muller-Moore is not alone in relishing his David vs. Goliath victory. Governor Peter Shumlin for one applauds the decision. He stated: "The message is out: Don't mess with Vermont. And don't mess with Bo. This isn't just a win for the little guy who stands up to a corporate bully; it's a win for our state. In Vermont, we care about what's in our food, who grows it, and where it comes from."

(Image courtesy of Bo Muller Moore)