Overview of Dubnium Facts and Physical Properties

Dubnium is a radioactive synthetic element. Here are interesting facts about this element and a summary of its chemical and physical properties. Interesting Dubnium Facts Dubnium is named for the town in Russia where it was first made, Dubna. It may only be produced in a nuclear facility. Dubnium does not exist naturally on Earth.The element dubnium was the subject of a naming controversy. The Russian discovery team (1969) proposed the name  nielsbohrium  (Ns) in honor of the Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr. In 1970, an American team made the element by bombarding californium-239 with nitrogen-15 atoms. They proposed the name hahnium (Ha), to honor the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Otto Hahn. The IUPAC determined the two labs should share credit for the discovery because their results supported each others validity, using different methods to create the element. The IUPAC assigned the name  unnilpentium for element 105 until a naming decision could be reached. It wasnt until 1997 it was decided the element should be named Dubnium (Db) for the Dubna research facility -- the location where the element was initially synthesized.Dubnium is a super -heavy or transactinide element. If a sufficient amount were ever produced, its chemical properties are expected to be similar to that of the transition metals. It would be most similar to the element tantalum.Dubnium was first made by bombarding americium-243 with neon-22 atoms.All isotopes of dubnium are radioactive. The most stable one has a half-life of  28 hours.Only a few atoms of dubnium have ever been produced. At present, little is known about its properties and it has no practical uses. Dubnium or Db Chemical and Physical Properties Element Name: Dubnium Atomic Number: 105 Symbol: Db Atomic Weight: (262) Discovery: A. Ghiorso, et al, L Berkeley Lab, USA - G.N. Flerov, Dubna Lab, Russia 1967 Discovery Date: 1967 (USSR); 1970 (United States) Electron Configuration: [Rn] 5f14 6d3 7s2 Element Classification: Transition Metal Crystal Structure: body-centered cubic Name Origin: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research at Dubna Appearance: Radioactive, synthetic metal References: Los Alamos National Laboratory (2001), Crescent Chemical Company (2001), Langes Handbook of Chemistry (1952)

John Rick Is A Christian Farmer, Salem, Massachusetts, The...

John Rick was a Christian farmer in Salem, Massachusetts, the land of the Puritans. Since the first Puritans’ arrival at the New World from England, everything had been normal and people havd been doing normal things like farming, cooking, preaching, making candles or going to church. Together, they built a strong Christian community of hardworking, humble Christ followers. They even found a college named Harvard to train pastors. John Rick’s generation continued to keep those values and protect the lands. However, there was a dark period of time when the town was not normal anymore. For some reasons, people in Salem started to believe that the Devil had come among them. He tempted even people who used to be virtous Christians and tried†¦show more content†¦Although almost forty people signed in a petition for Mrs. Nurse, she still ended up being hanged. Another trial that Rick attended was the trail of George Simpson’, one of Rick’s closest friend. Simpson, as honest as Mrs. Nurse, refused to confess and claimed that he was innocent before God. The moment the judge declare Simpson’s death sentence, Rick was quite surprised. Rick was already quite unconvinced of Mrs. Nurse’s death, and this time he was even more doubtful. First, George Simpson was a nice and educated minister that helped everyone who needed help. Until the night Simpson got arrested, Rick saw no non-Christian signs on this friend. Also, Rick knew that Simpson was a muscular man, so it totally made sense if he could lift a big rock with one hand. Nevertheless, all court personnels concluded that Simpson could not have done that without Satan’s help. For some reasons, Rick told himself that he could not do anything about it. It became truly serious to John Rick when one afternoon, a court official and other ten men came to his house to arrest his wife. Mrs. Rick was similar to Mrs. Nurse, a virtous and pious Christian woman. John Rick had nearly gone mad; half of his mind told him if his wife was indeed innocent, she would be released. The other half reminded him of Mrs. Nurse’s and Simpson’s deaths. That night, he went around in the town to convince people to sign in a petition for his wife. By the

Australian Higher Education Loan Program †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Australian Higher Education Loan Program. Answer: Introduction: According to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 income that is derived from the scholarship or other forms of allowance for educational purpose to the full time students will be considered as exempt income from tax (Barkoczy, 2014). The exemption is only applicable if an individual receiving scholarship or other form of receipt is not conditional on the rendering of services to the person providing payment. Self-education expenditure is considered as allowable deduction given that there is a direct association between the education being undertaken and the way a person generates taxable income (Brokelind, 2014). An individual is allowed to claim an allowable deduction for the self-education expenditure if an individual is engaged in the work related purpose and receives a taxable bonded scholarship. The essay will be focusing on the self-education expenses linked with assessable income and would also determine the deductibility of the expenses incurred by the tax payer. Over the years the most common matter of litigation among the taxpayers and the Australian taxation office has been the self-education expenditure. The primary reason is that the taxpayers are forced by the employer to undertake a course of study as they believe that this entitles them to income tax deduction (Coleman Sadiq, 2013). Others might have the desire to study independently so that they can improve their income earning or the prospects of employment and have the identical believe regarding the deductibility of costs related to self-education course that has been completed. In addition to this section 23 (z) of the ITAA 1997 provides that other receipts for self-education expenditure such as other gifts relating to study have been exempt from income tax (Blissenden et al., 2018). The federal court passed its verdict in Smith v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) that a payment that is made by the employer to an employee on the completion of the course under the encouragement to study scheme was not considered for assessment for income tax purpose (Ato.gov.au 2017). The payment received by the taxpayer was not associated with the employment income of the taxpayer. The payment received was not conditional on the performance of the service to the employer but the same was held as gift from the employer to employee. Education grants that are paid by the employer to the employees that have undertaken an educational course is most likely to be taxed given that there are certain obligations or services that is required to be performed as the condition of the payment. On noticing that the payment made by employer does not have any obligation or conditions involved to it and the same is not the product or incident of recipient employment it would not form the part of the taxpayers taxable income. Under section 51 (1) of the ITAA 1997 educational expenditure would be considered as the allowable expenditure if the expenditure is incurred in attainment or production of the taxable income or the income has is incurred by the taxpayer necessarily on the business for the purpose of deriving or producing the taxable income (Ato.gov.au 2017). The outgoing should be such that there is a relationship between the scholars taxable income and expenses incurred. The traditional test in determining the deductibility of the expenses is that it must be relevant and incidental in producing the taxable income. The Australian taxation office believes that it is solely necessary to take account the first limb of section when taking account, the deductibility of the self-education expenditure. The key principles are that expenditure must have direct associated with the assessable income of the taxpayer (Jover-Ledesma, 2014). A taxpayer is allowed to claim deductions for self-education expenditure to maintain or improve their income earning capacity or knowledge that is needed in gaining taxpayers field of employment. If it is noticed that course of study that is very general in respect of taxpayers present income generating capacity the necessary association amid the self-education expenditure and the income generating capacity does not exist. The cost incurred by the taxpayer for self-improvement and personal development course are not considered as the allowable deductions, even though the deductions might be considered as allowable in certain circumstances. Preceding from the above discussion, the principles stated above does not generally functions on the mutually exclusive basis. It is all the time necessary to pay attention towards the section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 and implement them based on the facts. An expenditure is allowed for deduction under section 8-1 when the expenses possess the necessary character of income generating expenditure (Ato.gov.au 2017). The necessary character of the expenses should be ascertained by the objective analysis of the surrounding circumstances. There are situations where distribution in respect to section 8-1 is necessary. For instance, if an individual attends the conference that is related to work is for income generating purpose or it is appropriate to apportion the expense amid the purpose (Ato.gov.au 2017). On noticing that if the income generating objective is simply incidental to the central private purpose then the expenditure that is related directly to the previous objective will be considered as the allowable. Nevertheless, if the personal purpose is simply incidental to the chief income generating purpose the apportionment would not be considered appropriate. An individual would be able to claim an allowable deduction for the self-education purpose if the subject of self-education is more likely to result an increase in the taxpayer income generating capacity from their present income deriving activities (Ato.gov.au 2017). Self-education expenditure associated to improving the knowledge or the skills of taxpayer are not held as capital in nature. A person is barred from claiming allowable deduction for the cost incurred on courses that is created to get employment, to get a new employment or to open up the new income generating activity. The principle behind that is the expenditure that are incurred at the point too soon to be considered incurred in deriving the taxable income. Expenditure relating to self-education enabling the employee to start a different position with the identical employee shall be considered as non-deductible expenditure under this standard (Morgan et al., 2014). The court of law in Maddalena v Federal Court of Taxa tion (1971) have stated its decision that a taxpayer is not allowed to claim an allowable deduction for the self-education expenditure if the study is intended to allow the taxpayer to obtain employment or the get the new employment. For several years the taxpayers have claimed expenditure related to self-education against the other income received from the educational assistance namely the commonwealth or the Austudy. This was based on the premise that the expenditure is required to be incurred in meeting the acceptable advancement requirement (Sadiq et al., 2014). Further argument was bought forward that by accepting the Austudy or the other payments, the taxpayer is under obligation to study and any form of expenditure that is occurred in fulfilling the duty will be considered as deductible expenditure. An important consideration can be bought forward regarding the self-education expense. Some of the decision of the court in the case of White v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) have resulted in confusion by applying the expression of perceived connection among the expenditure and deriving of taxable income. Severer test has been applied by the federal court of law under section 8-1 in determining the determinants of the self-education expenses (Ato.gov.au 2017). However, in the decision of Studdert v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) the court of law have regarded more relevant provisions regarding perceived connection among the expenditure and deriving of taxable income. Despite of the fact that the self-education expenditure is considered as the allowable deduction in the preceding paragraph principles however the taxation ruling of TR 98/9 does not allows allowable deductions unless it is sustained substantially for the purpose of work. The ruling further provides that if the claim for deductions goes past $300 a written evidence is required to prove the total amount of deductions (Woellner et al., 2014). The deductibility relating to the self-education expenses not only creates an impact on the position of tax of an individual person but also create an impact on the fringe benefit liability of the taxpayer. As held in the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Roberts (1992) the court of law has technically followed the established cases having number of short falls (Blog et al., 2018). The commissioner has also failed to take account of comments of Finn that are relating to employment by separate people and does not take account of the purpos e approach in ascertaining the deductibility of the outgoings. A wider and highly liberal approach relating to the deductibility of the self-education expenditure would promote higher educational qualifications. As pointed out by Pinto (2014), the spending of government on education have now fallen and it is anticipated a more onerous user pay system would be introduced. If the users are necessarily required to pay one method of enabling the users to incur self-education expenditure that is necessary for the nations development is to allow the taxpayers in claiming tax deductions or income for their expenditure. Employers are generally not able to allow an employee to be on leave for a period of one year or more. They have the options for serval employees to leave the work and pursue to finish their study (Sadiq et al., 2014). The present law of tax in Australia provides the rule that expenditure would not be considered allowable for deductions. An expenditure would be considered as the allowable expenditure under section 8-1 when the expenditure that has been incurred in producing assessable income. The necessary character of the expenditure should be determined based on the objectivity of the analysis of all the surrounding circumstances (Morgan et al., 2014). If the purpose of the study undertakes by the taxpayer or the attendance to work associated conference is for gaining the other taxable income the presence of existence or the incidental private purpose does not create an impact on the character of the associated expenditure as completely incurred in generating taxable income. The commissioner in the case of Ronpibon Tin NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) has identified that there are two forms of expenditure that needs apportionment in respect to section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997. The first expenses should be in respect of matter where the distinct and the several parts are devoted in generating the taxable income while the other part is dedicated in gaining some other income (Krever, 2013). If the taxpayer has incurred expenditure that was entirely devoted towards private purpose namely having the holiday and producing the attaining or generating the income that is simply incidental to the personal purpose only those expenditures would be considered allowable that are attributable to the income generating purpose. The second kind of distributable is the solitary expenditure that is serving both the income generating purpose and some other income generating purpose for indifferent reasons. The court of law has stated that there cannot be any precise arithmetical division of the cases and have asserted that there should be certain fair and reasonable division of the facts of each cases (Pinto, 2014). As a general rule it is necessary to meet the deductibility test for self-education expenditure and the expenditure is required to have a sufficient connection with the income generating capacity of the taxpayer. Additionally, the federal commissioner allows an individual taxpayer to claim for self-education deductions given the expenditure is incurred in increasing the taxpayers income from their current income generating activities. Conclusion: On a conclusive note, an individual would be able to claim deductions if the self-education expenditure is related to the course they undertake or improve the specific skills in their present employment. However, an assertion can be bought forward by stating that it is time for reviewing the deductibility of self-educational purpose. The expenditure associated to self-education purpose should be considered for deductions and must be free from fringe benefit taxation. Alternatively, provision must be made for the expenditure to be depreciated over the determined period of qualification. Such kind alteration in rules would help expanding the income and would entirely benefit the entire community in the long run. References Barkoczy, S. (2014)Foundations of taxation law. Blissenden, M., Kenny, P., Villios, S., Xynas, L. (2018).Self-education expenses: some thoughts for taxpayers and their advisers.Dro.deakin.edu.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30068155 Blog, E., Checklists, T., Advice, N., 2018, T. et al. (2018).Self Education Expenses Can Boost Your Refund: Are You Eligible?.Etax.com.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.etax.com.au/self-education-expenses/ Brokelind, C. (2014).Principles of law: function, status and impact in EU tax law. Amsterdam: IBFD. Coleman, C., Sadiq, K. (2013)Principles of taxation law. D4 Work-related self-education expenses 2017. (2018).Ato.gov.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Tax-Return/2017/Tax-return/Deduction-questions-D1-D10/D4-Work-related-self-education-expenses-2017/?=redirected Does the Australian Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) undermine personal income tax integrity? - ProQuest. (2018).Search.proquest.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://search.proquest.com/openview/8e1d18f06d9a275aad6d04980a1e1801/1?pq-origsite=gscholarcbl=106013 Education and study. (2018).Ato.gov.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/In-detail/Education-and-study/ Education professionals - claiming work-related expenses. (2018).Ato.gov.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/In-detail/Deductions-for-specific-industries-and-occupations/Education-professionals---claiming-work-related-expenses/?page=4 IT professionals - claiming work-related expenses. (2018).Ato.gov.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/In-detail/Deductions-for-specific-industries-and-occupations/IT-professionals---claiming-work-related-expenses/?page=4 James, M.(2014) Taxation of small businesses. Krever, R. (2013).Australian taxation law cases 2013. Pyrmont, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters. Morgan, A., Mortimer, C., Pinto, D. (2013).A practical introduction to Australian taxation law. North Ryde [N.S.W.]: CCH Australia. Pinto, D. (2014). State taxes. InAustralian Taxation Law(pp. 1763-1762). CCH Australia Limited. Sadiq, K., Coleman, C., Hanegbi, R., Jogarajan, S., Krever, R., Obst, W., Ting, A. (2014)Principles of taxation law. Self-education expenses. (2018).Ato.gov.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/Deductions-you-can-claim/Self-education-expenses/ Self-education expenses. (2018).Ato.gov.au. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Dispute-or-object-to-an-ATO-decision/In-detail/Information-for-your-objection/Deductions/Self-education-expenses/ The Australian Taxation Office perspective on work-related travel expense deductions for academics: International Journal of Critical Accounting: Vol 8, No 5-6. (2018).Inderscienceonline.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJCA.2016.081623 Woellner, R. (2013).Australian taxation law select 2013. North Ryde, N.S.W.: CCH Australia. Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C., Pinto, D. (2014)Australian taxation law.