SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Galilee

Galilee is a region located in northern Israel. The term Galilee traditionally refers to the mountainous part, divided into Upper Galilee and Lower Galilee. In modern, common usage, as well at different times in history, Galilee referred and refers to all of the area, north of the Mount Carmel-Mount Gilboa ridge. In this sense, it extends from the Israeli coastal plain and the shores of the Mediterranean Sea with Acre in the west, to the Jordan Rift Valley to the east; this definition includes the plains of the Jezreel Valley north of Jenin and the Beth Shean Valley, the valley containing the Sea of Galilee, the Hula Valley, although it does not include Haifa's immediate northern suburbs. By this definition it overlaps with much of the administrative Northern District of the country. Western Galilee is a common term referring to the western part of the Upper Galilee and its shore, also the northwestern part of the Lower Galilee overlapping with Acre sub-district. Galilee Panhandle is a common term referring to the "panhandle" in the east that extends to the north, where Lebanon is to the west, includes Hula Valley and Ramot Naftali mountains of the Upper Galilee.

The part of Southern Lebanon south of the east-west section of the Litani River belonged to the region of Galilee, but the present article deals with the Israeli part of the region. The region's Israelite name is from the Hebrew root גָּלִיל, an unique word for'district', usually'cylinder'; the Hebrew form used in Isaiah 8:23 is in the construct state, g'lil ha-goyím, meaning'Galilee of the nations', i.e. the part of Galilee inhabited by Gentiles at the time that the book was written. The region in turn gave rise to the English name for the "Sea of Galilee" referred to as such in many languages including ancient Arabic. In the Hebrew language, the lake is referred to from Hebrew kinnor; these are the three names used in internal Jewish-authored literature rather than the "Sea of Galilee". However, Jews did use "the Galilee", including its lake. Most of Galilee consists of rocky terrain, at heights of between 500 and 700 m. Several high mountains are in the region, including Mount Tabor and Mount Meron, which have low temperatures and high rainfall.

As a result of this climate and fauna thrive in the region, while many birds annually migrate from colder climates to Africa and back through the Hula–Jordan corridor. The streams and waterfalls, the latter in Upper Galilee, along with vast fields of greenery and colourful wildflowers, as well as numerous towns of biblical importance, make the region a popular tourist destination. Due to its high rainfall 900 millimetres –1,200 millimetres, mild temperatures and high mountains, the upper Galilee region contains some distinctive flora and fauna: prickly juniper, Lebanese cedar, which grows in a small grove on Mount Meron, cyclamens and Rhododendron ponticum which sometimes appears on Meron. According to the Bible, Galilee was named by the Israelites and was the tribal region of Naphthali and Dan, at times overlapping the Tribe of Asher's land. However, Dan was dispersed among the whole people rather than isolated to the lands of Dan, as the Tribe of Dan was the hereditary local law enforcement and judiciary for the whole nation.

Galilee is just referred to as Naphthali. Chapter 9 of 1 Kings states that Solomon rewarded his Phoenician ally, King Hiram I of Sidon, with twenty cities in the land of Galilee, which would have been either settled by foreigners during and after the reign of Hiram, or by those, forcibly deported there by conquerors such as the Assyrians. Hiram, to reciprocate previous gifts given to David, accepted the upland plain among the mountains of Naphtali and renamed it "the land of Cabul" for a time. During the expansion under the Hasmonean dynasty much of the Galilee region was conquered and annexed by the first Hasmonean King of Judaea Aristobulus I. Galilee in the first century was dotted with small towns and villages; the Jewish historian Josephus claims that there were 204 small towns in Galilee, but modern scholars believe this estimate to be an exaggeration. Many of these towns were located around the Sea of Galilee, which contained many edible fish and, surrounded by fertile land. Salted and pickled fish were an important export good.

In 4 BCE, a rebel named Judah plundered Sepphoris. In response, the Syrian governor Publius Quinctilius Varus sacked Sepphoris and sold the population into slavery. After the death of Herod the Great that same year, the Roman emperor Augustus appointed his son Herod Antipas as tet

Valentine Theatre

The Valentine Theatre is located in the downtown district of Toledo, Ohio at the corner of Superior and Adams Streets. The 124-year-old facility seats 901, it is owned by the Toledo Cultural Arts Center and operated by the Columbus Association for the Performing Arts. The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places on May 19, 1987. A $28 million renovation of the building carried out by architect Charles H. Stark, begun in 1978 and taking 21 years to complete, was unveiled on October 9, 1999. On November 23, 2007, a natural gas explosion in the basement caused extensive damage and forced the evacuation of the adjoining Renaissance Senior Apartments; the theater reopened in April 2008 after repairs costing $3.5 million. Toledo Symphony Orchestra Toledo Opera Toledo Ballet Toledo Jazz Society Toledo Jazz Orchestra Toledo Masterworks Chorale Toledo Repertory Theatre Official website

Ramsay principle

"Ramsay principle" is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982: Ramsay v. IRC, the full name of, W. T. Ramsay Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, Eilbeck v. Rawling, its citation is A. C. 300. IRC v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. the full name of, Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. and its citation is S. T. C. 30, H. L. In summary, companies that had made substantial capital gains had entered into complex and self-cancelling series of transactions that had generated artificial capital losses, for the purpose of avoiding capital gains tax; the House of Lords decided that where a transaction has pre-arranged artificial steps that serve no commercial purpose other than to save tax, the proper approach is to tax the effect of the transaction as a whole. The decision is not limited to capital gains tax, but applies to all forms of direct taxation, is an important restraint on the ability of taxpayers to engage in creative tax planning.

The important facts are set out in the following quotation from Lord Wilberforce:. is an appeal by W. T. Ramsay Ltd. a farming company. In its accounting period ending May 31, 1973, it made a "chargeable gain" for the purposes of corporation tax by a sale-leaseback transaction; this gain. The method chosen was to purchase from a company specialising in such matters a ready-made scheme; the general nature of this was to create out of a neutral situation two assets one of which would decrease in value for the benefit of the other. The decreasing asset would be sold; the two assets in question were loans of equal amounts, which had an unusual condition: Ramsay Ltd. was entitled, once, to reduce the rate of interest on one loan, provided that the rate of interest on the other loan increased by the same amount. Ramsay Ltd. exercised this right, such that one loan became worth far more than its original value, the other far less. The loan that had gained in value was disposed of in such a way that it was intended to be exempt from tax as "debt", while the loan that had fallen in value was disposed of in such a way that it was intended to be a deductible capital loss.

Funding for the entire transaction was provided by a finance house, on terms such that the money would pass round in a circle, back into their hands again, within a few days, with interest. The House of Lords rejected the idea that there was any exemption from tax under the "debt on a security" rule. However, not the basis of their decision, a more far-reaching principle; some types of interests in trusts are "assets" of a kind that can be bought, be subjected to CGT. Other types of interests in trusts are not "assets" in that sense; the taxpayer in this case, Mr Rawling, tried to take advantage of that fact by entering into the following transactions: On day 1, two trusts were created: a Gibraltar trust, of the kind in which a reversionary interest would be a taxable asset. A Jersey trust, of the kind in which Mr Rawling's interest would not be a taxable asset, it was a term of the Gibraltar trust that its trustees could make appointments of money to the Jersey trust. On day 2, Mr Rawling bought a reversionary interest in the Gibraltar trust.

On day 3, The trustees of the Gibraltar trust appointed £315,000 to the Jersey trust. On day 4, Mr Rawling sold his reversionary interest in the Gibraltar trust at its new market value, making a substantial loss since the asset was worth far less than it had been on day 2, it was not a coincidence that the loss was a little under £315,000: just enough to cover an unrelated taxable capital gain Mr Rawling had made in the same year. The court rejected the idea. Lord Russell said, quite bluntly: I wholly fail to comprehend the contention that the taxpayer sustained a loss, his reasoning was that Mr Rawling had an interest in the Jersey trust, anyway, so there had not been any loss on the sale of the interest in the Gibraltar trust. All of the money needed to fund these trusts, to purchase the interests in them, had been provided by a company called Thun Ltd. on terms that it would all be paid back to Thun Ltd. after the transactions had been completed. However the core of the decision was not related to the judges' disagreement with the detail of the taxpayer's case.

Instead it was based on a more fundamental principle explained under "Judgements" below. Note that the facts have been simplified for ease of explanation, that the actual transaction was rather more complex. Lord Wilberforce described the transactions in the Ramsay and Rawling cases with this colourful simile: In each case two assets appear, like "particles" in a gas chamber with opposite charges, one of, used to create the loss, the other of which gives rise to an equivalent gain that prevents the taxpayer from supporting any real loss and whose gain is intended not to be taxable. Like the particles, these assets have a short life. Havin