Cases at the Assessment Review Committee Sample Clauses

Cases at the Assessment Review Committee. The MRA Act stipulates, amongst others, that any person who is aggrieved by a decision, determination, notice or claim may within a period of 28 days, lodge with the ARC, written representations, specifying the reasons for asking for a review. The Act also provides that the representations made by an aggrieved person shall be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and a panel shall endeavour to fix the case for hearing within six months from the date the representations were lodged; and to give its decision on the representations no later than eight weeks from the start of the hearing. However, an age analysis of cases at ARC as at 30 June 2017 showed that cases were not being determined within the prescribed time limit. As shown in Table 6-5, 1,436 cases for an amount of Rs 5,913,400,002 were lodged at the ARC prior to 2016. This represented 57 per cent of the total assessed amount, pending at the ARC as at 30 June 2017. 1999-2010 84 115,506,999 1.12 2011-2015 1,352 5,797,893,003 56.04 January 2016 – June 2017 1,629 4,431,845,036 42.84 Appeal cases are not under the purview of the MRA but that of the ARC. The MRA is therefore not in a position to comment on the number of cases pending at the ARC, the amount involved or the non-determination of cases within the six month statutory period. With a view to reducing the number of appeal cases at ARC: An Alternative Tax Dispute Resolution (ATDR) Panel had been set up under the MRA Act to deal with applications for review made by any person who had been assessed to Income Tax, VAT or Gaming Tax and who had objected to the assessment or appealed at the ARC, where the amount of tax payable under dispute exceeded Rs 10 million; The Expeditious Dispute Resolution Tax Scheme (EDRTS) had also been set up under the MRA Act, to review assessments raised for Income Tax, VAT and Gaming Tax, where the tax claimed under the assessments did not exceed Rs10 million. As of 31 December 2017: 99 applications for an assessed amount of Rs 2.8 billion had been received at the ATDR Panel. 29 of these applications, where the assessed amount was Rs 930 million, had already been finalised for an amount of some Rs 290 million; 405 cases with an assessed amount of Rs 358.9 million had been received under the EDRTS. 93 of these cases had been finalised for some Rs 22 million, against an assessed amount of Rs 80.5 million. Further, 323 cases, which were pending before the ARC, have been finalised through pre-hearing negotiations by MRA du...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Cases at the Assessment Review Committee

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Review of assessment The assessment of the applicable percentage should be subject to annual review or earlier on the basis of a reasonable request for such a review. The process of review shall be in accordance with the procedures for assessing capacity under the Supported Wage System.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Registered Nurses Association of Ontario 000 Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Telephone: (000) 000-0000, ext. 216 Fax: (000) 000-0000 E-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx Ms. Xxxxxxx Plain 0000 Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Email: xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx BETWEEN: AND:

  • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC The goal of this subtask is to create an advisory committee for this Agreement. The TAC should be composed of diverse professionals. The composition will vary depending on interest, availability, and need. TAC members will serve at the CAM’s discretion. The purpose of the TAC is to: • Provide guidance in project direction. The guidance may include scope and methodologies, timing, and coordination with other projects. The guidance may be based on: o Technical area expertise; o Knowledge of market applications; or o Linkages between the agreement work and other past, present, or future projects (both public and private sectors) that TAC members are aware of in a particular area. • Review products and provide recommendations for needed product adjustments, refinements, or enhancements. • Evaluate the tangible benefits of the project to the state of California, and provide recommendations as needed to enhance the benefits. • Provide recommendations regarding information dissemination, market pathways, or commercialization strategies relevant to the project products. The TAC may be composed of qualified professionals spanning the following types of disciplines: • Researchers knowledgeable about the project subject matter; • Members of trades that will apply the results of the project (e.g., designers, engineers, architects, contractors, and trade representatives); • Public interest market transformation implementers; • Product developers relevant to the project; • U.S. Department of Energy research managers, or experts from other federal or state agencies relevant to the project; • Public interest environmental groups; • Utility representatives; • Air district staff; and • Members of relevant technical society committees. • Prepare a List of Potential TAC Members that includes the names, companies, physical and electronic addresses, and phone numbers of potential members. The list will be discussed at the Kick-off meeting, and a schedule for recruiting members and holding the first TAC meeting will be developed. • Recruit TAC members. Ensure that each individual understands member obligations and the TAC meeting schedule developed in subtask 1.11. • Prepare a List of TAC Members once all TAC members have committed to serving on the TAC. • Submit Documentation of TAC Member Commitment (such as Letters of Acceptance) from each TAC member. • List of Potential TAC Members • List of TAC Members • Documentation of TAC Member Commitment

  • Final Audit Report Contractor shall promptly submit to the State a copy of any final audit report of an audit performed on Contractor’s records that relates to or affects this Contract or the Work, whether the audit is conducted by Contractor or a third party.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!