Ford, a Michigan based auto major in America was started with a motive “inexpensive cars for the masses”. Being a family controlled company for over 100 years; this company is rather successful when compared to many of its rivals which started a hundred years ago. When American car manufactures started manufacturing motor cars in 1900s, they got patent license from ‘Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers’ (ALAM) which was owned by a patent Attorney named George B. Selden. Despite never having gone into production with a working model of an automobile ALAM got patent licensing rights to build cars and enjoyed the royalty.
Henry Ford refused to pay royalties to ALAM and started manufacturing cars. George took Ford to the court on the account of patent infringement. The patent war lasted for 8 years creating 14,000 pages of court documents. Finally George won the case in the trial court. This was the headlines in most news papers of that time. Encouraged by Thomas A Edison, Henry went for an appeal. George’s patent was over turned just a year before it could expire. The appeals court used the “Enablement” principle to decide the matter along with Non-obviousness.
Enablement means, providing sufficient and detailed information about the invention so that any appropriately trained person is able to make it. It goes without saying that the inventor must make the invention. There can be no patent granted merely for the concept or idea. It has to be operational. In this case, George was given patent for an improvement to Brayton Engine and he never manufactured a car based on his own patented invention. By the time the court overturned the patent, George had made several thousand dollars out of the patent.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Can God be taxed?
For all those who believe in GOD this is a tough and unpleasant question. In the first place why would one want to tax the GOD who created the Tax officials? The court thinks the other way.
Now let us look at the legal position of a “Hindu Idol” as for Hindus the Idols are symbolic representation of the GOD himself. The Privy Council considered the idol as a juristic person but it is a junior who constantly needs a guardian to act on its behalf. The will of the idol must be respected pertaining to its location. In the Yogendra Nath Naskar V. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court of India held that the Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property and of being taxed through ‘Shebaits’ who are entrusted with the possession and management of its property.
A Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word individual under the Income Tax Act, 1922 and can be a person in law, but so far as the deity stands as the representative and symbal of the particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person and in that capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it. There is no principle why a deity should not be taxed if it is allowed in law to own property.
So now let us see whether a Mosque, Church, Synagogue, Gurudwara, is a juristic person or not. As per the privy council, they are not. They are not legal persons because, they do not have rights or duties as natural persons. However the Privy council left the question open whether such religious places could for any purpose be regarded as a juristic person.
Now let us look at the legal position of a “Hindu Idol” as for Hindus the Idols are symbolic representation of the GOD himself. The Privy Council considered the idol as a juristic person but it is a junior who constantly needs a guardian to act on its behalf. The will of the idol must be respected pertaining to its location. In the Yogendra Nath Naskar V. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court of India held that the Hindu idol is a juristic entity capable of holding property and of being taxed through ‘Shebaits’ who are entrusted with the possession and management of its property.
A Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word individual under the Income Tax Act, 1922 and can be a person in law, but so far as the deity stands as the representative and symbal of the particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person and in that capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it. There is no principle why a deity should not be taxed if it is allowed in law to own property.
So now let us see whether a Mosque, Church, Synagogue, Gurudwara, is a juristic person or not. As per the privy council, they are not. They are not legal persons because, they do not have rights or duties as natural persons. However the Privy council left the question open whether such religious places could for any purpose be regarded as a juristic person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
