As especificidades das monarquias ibéricas e de suas experiências coloniais na América e na África Ocidental definiram uma configuração das relações de dominium e poder em uma perspectiva ibero-atlântica, que teve início na passagem do século XV para o XVI, consolidou-se com a União Ibérica e entrou em crise em meados da década de 1610. A conquista da ilha Espanhola e o povoamento de São Tomé, entre 1493 e 1499, revelaram a relação entre o dominium sobre as populações não cristãs e o poder político no processo de colonização. A partir desse ano, as Coroas ibéricas começaram a interferir nas relações de dominium sobre os indígenas e no tráfico de escravos africanos, a fim de definir sua autoridade sobre as sociedades novas estabelecidas nos espaços ultramarinos. A ruptura com o processo de conquista se definiu entre 1542 e 1549, nas Índias Ocidentais, pelo estabelecimento dos vice-reinados e das Leyes Nuevas, e, no Brasil pela instituição do governo-geral e o esboço de uma política indigenista. Entre as décadas de 1570 e 1590 define-se a perspectiva ibérica do poder monárquico e a complementaridade das formas de dominium sobre os indígenas e africanos no Atlântico. A política de Felipe III foi o marco culminante desse processo que definiu os limites e resistências a essa nova arquitetura de poder. / The specificities of Iberian monarchies and of their colonial experiences in America and in West Africa defined a configuration of the relationships of dominium and power in a Iberian-Atlantic perspective, which started in the end of the fifteenth century to the sixteenth. It was consolidated with the Iberian Union and started to decline in mid-1610. The conquest of the island Espanhola and the settlement of São Tomé, between 1493 and 1499, revealed the relation between the dominium upon the non Christian populations and the political power in the process of colonization. From that year on the Iberian Crowns started to interfere in the dominium relations upon the Indians and on the traffic of African slaves, to define their authority on the new societies established overseas. The rupture with the process of conquest was defined between 1542 and 1549, in West Indies by the establishment of viceroyalties and the Leyes Nuevas, and in Brazil by the institution of the general government and the sketch of an Indian policy. Between the decades of 1570 and 1590 an Iberian perspective of the monarchical power and the complementarity of dominium forms upon the Indians and Africans in the Atlantic were defined. The policy of Felipe III was the culmination of the process that defined the limits and resistances to the new architecture of power.

As especificidades das monarquias ibéricas e de suas experiências coloniais na América e na África Ocidental definiram uma configuração das relações de dominium e poder em uma perspectiva ibero-atlântica, que teve início na passagem do século XV para o XVI, consolidou-se com a União Ibérica e entrou em crise em meados da década de 1610. A conquista da ilha Espanhola e o povoamento de São Tomé, entre 1493 e 1499, revelaram a relação entre o dominium sobre as populações não cristãs e o poder político no processo de colonização. A partir desse ano, as Coroas ibéricas começaram a interferir nas relações de dominium sobre os indígenas e no tráfico de escravos africanos, a fim de definir sua autoridade sobre as sociedades novas estabelecidas nos espaços ultramarinos. A ruptura com o processo de conquista se definiu entre 1542 e 1549, nas Índias Ocidentais, pelo estabelecimento dos vice-reinados e das Leyes Nuevas, e, no Brasil pela instituição do governo-geral e o esboço de uma política indigenista. Entre as décadas de 1570 e 1590 define-se a perspectiva ibérica do poder monárquico e a complementaridade das formas de dominium sobre os indígenas e africanos no Atlântico. A política de Felipe III foi o marco culminante desse processo que definiu os limites e resistências a essa nova arquitetura de poder. / The specificities of Iberian monarchies and of their colonial experiences in America and in West Africa defined a configuration of the relationships of dominium and power in a Iberian-Atlantic perspective, which started in the end of the fifteenth century to the sixteenth. It was consolidated with the Iberian Union and started to decline in mid-1610. The conquest of the island Espanhola and the settlement of São Tomé, between 1493 and 1499, revealed the relation between the dominium upon the non Christian populations and the political power in the process of colonization. From that year on the Iberian Crowns started to interfere in the dominium relations upon the Indians and on the traffic of African slaves, to define their authority on the new societies established overseas. The rupture with the process of conquest was defined between 1542 and 1549, in West Indies by the establishment of viceroyalties and the Leyes Nuevas, and in Brazil by the institution of the general government and the sketch of an Indian policy. Between the decades of 1570 and 1590 an Iberian perspective of the monarchical power and the complementarity of dominium forms upon the Indians and Africans in the Atlantic were defined. The policy of Felipe III was the culmination of the process that defined the limits and resistances to the new architecture of power.

Sectional ownership has introduced several new concepts of property that differ significantly from prevailing as well as common-law concepts of property. The right of extension with regards to sectional titles is one such concept. The right entails a subtraction from the dominium of sectional owners and is widely regarded as a limited real right. It is submitted that the right cannot be categorised into any common-law category. The right is a statutory limited real right sui generis that has its own characteristics with regards to the way it is established, transferred, alienated, burdened or lapses. The right should also be recognised as constitutional property. The study concludes with an investigation into selected aspects relating to the right as an estate asset and points to problems relating to the valuation of the right for purposes of estate, capital gains and donation tax. / LLM (Estate Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Sectional ownership has introduced several new concepts of property that differ significantly from prevailing as well as common-law concepts of property. The right of extension with regards to sectional titles is one such concept. The right entails a subtraction from the dominium of sectional owners and is widely regarded as a limited real right. It is submitted that the right cannot be categorised into any common-law category. The right is a statutory limited real right sui generis that has its own characteristics with regards to the way it is established, transferred, alienated, burdened or lapses. The right should also be recognised as constitutional property. The study concludes with an investigation into selected aspects relating to the right as an estate asset and points to problems relating to the valuation of the right for purposes of estate, capital gains and donation tax. / LLM (Estate Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Univ., Diss.--Frankfurt (Main), 2004. / Literaturverz. S. IX - XX.

No description available.

This thesis is a part of the Faculty of Humanities project which investigates the development of the countryside in Bohemia during the age of industrialization. It focuses on the micro- region Kamenice-Velké Popovice. In the 19th century the Ringhoffer family established here the so-called United Dominion Kamenice-Štiřín. Following their commercial, cultural, representative and recreational activities, they gently and with consideration transformed the countryside step by step. The thesis is based on archival research, field research of the landscape traces of the Ringhoffers' activities in both XIX and XX centuries and on the study of literature and maps. Keywords Ringhoffer, land-use, landscape, dominion, land, business

The tax world as we knew it was turned upside down on 13 September 2007 when the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) announced its decision to deem the right to use an interest-free loan as an amount that accrued to the taxpayers in the case Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Brummeria Renaissance (Pty) Ltd and others 69 SATC 205. The findings of SCA brought about a “great deal of consternation in the business world” (Loubser, 2007:20). Due to the controversy as a result of this case, SARS drafted an Interpretation Note that illustrates the reasoning and tax treatment of an interest-free loan. On 30 June 2010, Interpretation Note No 58 was finally issued by SARS, providing guidance with regard to “an amount” that “accrues” to a taxpayer for the purposes of the gross income definition. This Interpretation Note will have a significant impact on a number of taxpayers. The purpose of this study is to understand the nature of an interest-free loan and identify its tax implications. The methodology followed in this study will be that of qualitative research. This will be conducted through analyzing the nature of a loan, specifically an interest-free loan, the gross income definition, including the value and timing of such amount, and whether a deduction may be claimed in respect of an interest-free loan. Notwithstanding the above, the study also includes an investigation of other taxes inter alia capital gains tax, donations tax, value-added tax, secondary tax on companies and newly proposed dividends tax. / Thesis (M.Com. (Tax))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The tax world as we knew it was turned upside down on 13 September 2007 when the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) announced its decision to deem the right to use an interest-free loan as an amount that accrued to the taxpayers in the case Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Brummeria Renaissance (Pty) Ltd and others 69 SATC 205. The findings of SCA brought about a “great deal of consternation in the business world” (Loubser, 2007:20). Due to the controversy as a result of this case, SARS drafted an Interpretation Note that illustrates the reasoning and tax treatment of an interest-free loan. On 30 June 2010, Interpretation Note No 58 was finally issued by SARS, providing guidance with regard to “an amount” that “accrues” to a taxpayer for the purposes of the gross income definition. This Interpretation Note will have a significant impact on a number of taxpayers. The purpose of this study is to understand the nature of an interest-free loan and identify its tax implications. The methodology followed in this study will be that of qualitative research. This will be conducted through analyzing the nature of a loan, specifically an interest-free loan, the gross income definition, including the value and timing of such amount, and whether a deduction may be claimed in respect of an interest-free loan. Notwithstanding the above, the study also includes an investigation of other taxes inter alia capital gains tax, donations tax, value-added tax, secondary tax on companies and newly proposed dividends tax. / Thesis (M.Com. (Tax))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The justification of property ownership based on individual subjective rights is tightly bound to humanist moral perspectives. God is left out as irrelevant to the just grounds of ownership, which is established primarily on the basis of human self-referential, moral capacity. This thesis aims at developing an alternative justification, both for property as an institution and as a private holding, with a view to bringing God back into the centre stage and thereby placing property ownership on the objective concept of right. A tradition hitherto generally left unnoticed, yet uncovered here as the source of inspiration, vests the whole project with a moral-teleological tone. The tradition, enunciated by St. Augustine and developed by St. Bonaventure and John Wyclif, invites us to see property from the perspective of a moral end: it ought to be used for the love of God and neighbours, and as such it can be owned only by the just. In spite of important insights into the moral nature of property, the Augustinian thesis not only fails to spell out what ‘use for love’ means but also suffers from elitism. Nor does it offer an adequate justification of private property. Such weaknesses call for revision. When we reinterpret the Augustinian thesis through the concept of the divine imperative of service coupled with a proper understanding of human work, property acquires a distinctive justification. Property, as an institution, is justified as a requisite for carrying out God’s redemptive work towards the world. From this general justification ensues the particular justification. We hold property as specifically ‘mine,’ since each person’s ordained mission to participate in God’s work requires a uniquely personal material means, although the recognition and fulfilment of individual mission still demands communal efforts. The duty to carry out the God-commanded mission at first allows us to possess private property only in a non-proprietorial and non-exclusive manner. Yet in the prevailing condition of economic scarcity and human greed, civil jurisdiction must provide a structure of rights to enforce property institution. As God’s invitation for the transformation of the world is a universal command, everybody should have a minimum of property, and yet in differentiation of the scope and kinds commensurate with the particularities of individual mission.