Tag Archive 杭州龙凤夜生活

Broad, England rattle South Africa

admin no comments

first_imgDURBAN, South Africa (AP):Stuart Broad rattled South Africa with three wickets as England had the world’s top-ranked team 137-4 in the first Test at stumps yesterday.After England posted 303 all out in its first innings at Kingsmead, Broad removed opener Stiaan van Zyl and South Africa captain Hashim Amla early in the home team’s reply. He returned to claim the prize wicket of AB de Villiers for 49 late on the second day.England led by 166 at stumps and had South Africa in a vulnerable position in Durban with its two best batsmen, Amla and De Villiers, out.”It was nice to hit that rhythm, but I’ll have to do it again tomorrow,” Broad said.Opener Dean Elgar was 67 not out and the key for South Africa on the third day with England eyeing a first-innings lead and a significant advantage at the start of the four-Test series.De Villiers hit seven fours and a six and was driving South Africa’s recovery from 14-2 and Broad’s first two strikes. But Broad forced an edge behind to wicketkeeper Jonny Bairstow with a superb seaming-away delivery and England edged ahead.When offspinner Moeen Ali bowled Faf du Plessis, England was clearly in control at 113-4.Broad finished the day with 3-16. Elgar and the inexperienced Temba Bavuma, who was 10 not out, took South Africa carefully to the close.”I think we forget about the scoreboard,” South Africa’s Morne Morkel said. “That’s the best thing for us to do, and just play the best batting cricket we can.”It could have been even better for England after the dismissal of Van Zyl with the second ball of the innings, when he chose to leave a delivery from Broad that clipped his off stump.Amla was dropped by Bairstow on two, although that mistake didn’t cost England much. South Africa’s No. 3 fell to a nick off Broad and a catch by Bairstow after adding just five more runs.CONTROVERSIALCALLDe Villiers also had a second chance when on 11. He sent a low catch to Ben Stokes in the gully, who claimed the dismissal after diving forward and cupping his hands under the ball. Australian TV umpire Bruce Oxenford ruled the ball hadn’t carried. England’s fielders didn’t agree, and Broad said the England management thought it was “100 per cent out”.De Villiers threatened to make England pay, gathering momentum in an 86-run partnership with Elgar in the late afternoon before Broad’s third wicket – and his most important – halted South Africa again. Broad celebrated exuberantly as De Villiers trudged off.Earlier, England lost its last six wickets for 129 at the start of the day after being 179-4 overnight. The tourists expected to make much better progress with their deep batting line-up.SCOREBOARDEngland 1st Innings(Overnight: 179-4)Alastair Cook c Elgar b Steyn 0Alex Hales c De Villiers b Steyn 10Nick Compton c De Villiers b Morkel 85Joe Root lbw b Piedt 24James Taylor c De Villiers b Steyn 70Ben Stokes c Duminy b Morkel 21Jonny Bairstow c Elgar b Abbott 41Moeen Ali c De Villiers b Morkel 0Chris Woakes lbw b Morkel 0Stuart Broad not out 32Steven Finn lbw b Steyn 12Extras: (1b, 3lb, 1w, 3nb) 8TOTAL: (all out) 303Overs: 100.1Fall of wickets: 1-3, 2-12, 3-49, 4-174, 5-196, 6-247, 7-253, 8-253, 9-267, 10-303.Bowling: Dale Steyn 25.1-5-70-4, Kyle Abbott 24-4-66-1 (1nb), Morne Morkel 26-5-76-4 (2nb, 1w), Dane Piedt 16-2-63-1, Stiaan van Zyl 2-1-2-0, Dean Elgar 7-2-22-0.South Africa 1st InningsStiaan van Zyl b Broad 0Dean Elgar not out 67Hashim Amla c Bairstow b Broad 7A.B. de Villiers c Bairstow b Broad 49Faf du Plessis b Ali 2Temba Bavuma not out 10Extras (1lb, 1w) 2TOTAL: (for 4 wickets) 137Overs: 52Still to bat: J.P. Duminy, Kyle Abbott, Morne Morkel, Dane Piedt, Dale Steyn.Fall of wickets: 1-0, 2-14, 3-100, 4-113.Bowling: Stuart Broad 10-5-16-3, Chris Woakes 11-1-22-0, Moeen Ali 13-0-45-1, Steven Finn 10-1-34-0, Ben Stokes 7-1-19-0, Joe Root 1-1-0-0.Umpires: Aleem Dar, Pakistan, and Rod Tucker, Australia.Television umpire: Bruce Oxenford, Australia.Match referee: Ranjan Madugalle, Sri Lanka.Toss: Won by South Africa.last_img read more

Are you aware of qualified charitable distributions?

admin no comments

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Brian E. RavencraftLet’s switch gears a bit this month and talk about Qualified Charitable Distributions. QCDs are cash donations that can be made by IRA owners and beneficiaries age 70.5 and over to IRS-approved public charities. These donations must come directly out of an IRA account to qualify as a QCD. They are federal income, tax free, but cannot be treated as an itemized write-off on your Form 1040 tax form. However, the tax free element presents an immediate 100% deduction without the concern of restrictions that can simply slow itemized deductions down.QCDs must come from you or your IRA trustee and go directly to a qualified public charity. Or, the IRA trustee can provide you with a check made out to the charity that you then must deliver. There can be no middle man action where the funds go into another account before being turned over to the charity. Looking to donate to a private foundation? You may not do so through a QCD. There is a $100,000 cap for annual QCD donations. Married couples with separate IRA accounts can both donate $100,000 respectfully.No matter how much you donate, you must keep record of the contribution — this should be provided to you by the charity and the charity must not provide you with any token of appreciation for your generosity.QCDs present income tax benefits as they are not considered a part of your Adjusted Gross Income, which keeps many phase out rules at bay. If you are interested in learning more about tax-saving QCD exercises, ask your accountant for specifics, or, reach out to me. I am always happy to help. You need to arrange for the proper IRA funds to go to the qualified charities of your choosing by year end so now is the time to act. Brian E. Ravencraft, CPA, CGMA is a Principal with Holbrook & Manter, CPAs. Brian has been with Holbrook & Manter since 1995, primarily focusing on the areas of Tax Consulting and Management Advisory Services within several firm service areas, focusing on agri-business and closely held businesses and their owners. Holbrook & Manter is a professional services firm founded in 1919 and we are unique in that we offer the resources of a large firm without compromising the focused and responsive personal attention that each client deserves. You can reach Brian through www.HolbrookManter.com or at BRavencraft@HolbrookManter.com.last_img read more

WOTUS debates continue in the legal system

admin no comments

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest In May 2015, the Obama EPA and Army Corp of Engineers issued a revised definition of “waters of the US.” That language has been discussed in this column on several occasions. Words, however, are rarely the culprit. That usually falls to aggressive interpretation and poor discretion by the enforcers of the rule. For instance, the EPA unsuccessfully attempted to regulate rain drops and puddles on a chicken farm as “waters of the US.” Ridiculous.The revised definition was widely criticized by farmers, builders and industry claiming the rule impermissibly allowed the EPA to regulate private land. The Trump Administration verbally opposed the definition, promising to repeal and replace it with a much narrower definition. As of Jan. 22, 2018, no action had been taken although an Executive Order was signed encouraging rule revision. Ever hear that not deciding is deciding?On that date, January 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY decided an important procedural issue in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense. Which court hears challenges to the meaning of “waters of the US”? All justices agreed that issues around the contentious waters of the US rule should be heard in federal district courts rather that appellate courts, even though it was not the most efficient use of judicial resources. Let that sink in. When is the last time all nine of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court agreed about anything other than lunchtime? And why does this matter?Moreover, both the Trump and Obama Administrations had argued that Clean Water Act issues should be interpreted functionally rather than literally. Both strenuously advocated for hearings in appellate courts, not the district courts. When did the Trump and Obama Administrations ever agree on anything? Ever hear the old saying that politics makes for strange bedfellows?Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the court and held that the text of the Clean Water Act trumps all of the government’s arguments in the long-running fight over which courts have jurisdiction over the Obama Administration contentious waters of the US rule. And district courts are the proper place.The choice of court — district not appellate — is significant because it affects the resources needed to litigate the merits of challenges, sets the Statute of Limitations for filing lawsuits and helps determine whether actions can be challenged in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. District courts are also more tilted toward overturning government actions. Use of district courts will likely make litigation and suits challenging Clean Water Act regulations less orderly, as this option enables the practice of forum shopping (opting to file suit in a favorable district), as well as the possibility of conflicting rulings from district courts.The decision is especially relevant as the Sixth Circuit of Appeals had a stay/hold on implementing the Obama era definition of “waters of the US.” Enacted in 1948, but as amended in 1972, the Clean Water Act established a basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the U.S. The legislation gave the EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry and regulating concentrated animal feeding operations.Since 1972, there has been much litigation about specifics of the Clean Water Act, some of it reaching the highest court. Most recently, in 2015, the revised definition of “waters of the US” had enraged many. The Obama administration sought to create a straightforward meaning, but critics felt it went too far and argued it was over-reaching.In the short time since the Supreme Court decision of Jan. 22, 2018, much has happened. The floodgates have opened, and many suits have already been filed in district courts all over the country.Ten days after the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, the EPA issued the following statement. “The 2015 WOTUS” rule developed by the Obama Administration will not be applicable for the next two years, while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.”Stay tuned for how the EPA’s position impacts the pending litigation in district courts. There is no clear answer at the present time. At least we know where the question is to be heard — in any federal district court in the country — thanks to the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision. And different districts may reach different conclusions. This could get interesting. At least while the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers are arguing about language they are not policing puddles.last_img read more