Thank you, and if the other panelists could please come up and join me up here on the stage You can sit in any order you like Good afternoon. It's my great pleasure to welcome you to the first panel this afternoon on a rules-based order in outer space one of the common themes of discussion on outer space governance these days is ensuring space sustainability through a rules-based order in outer space and Of course this raises questions What do we mean by a rules-based order?  Is space a fundamentally different domain of human activities with implications for the rule of law and governance Or is space a kind of a Wild West as some suggest? How do we reconcile the different visions for space exploration to arrive at a rules-based order in space? And what are some of the potential friction points? How do we encourage both enforcement of existing? international space regulations and the further development of new mechanisms and institutions to cover the future of space activity So see these are some of the themes that we will be exploring in this panel and To discuss these topics today. We have Eminent panelists up here on the stage with me So in not not in well, I guess it is kind of an order from you've actually seated in exactly the same order as my notes That's amazing. Wow So starting with over at the my far right Nicholas headman the current acting director of UN Ussah Then next to him Bayza Unal the head of science technology and international security at the UN office for disarmament affairs then next up is Rajiv Suri CEO of in Mar-Sat then Andrew Ratcliffe Chief engineer at the UK Space Agency and on my immediate right Jenny Tapio She's the head of the space office in the Ministry of Economic Affairs and employment of Finland So thank you all for taking the time to share your expertise and views with us So as with the other panels in this conference, we will go straight into a panel discussion and just to remind you that You can address questions to the panelists through the Hoover app So starting with you Nicholas During the 1960s the the UN and and eventually UN corpus was a hotbed of discussion on international law that led to the creation of the outer space treaty and the other Three treaties that followed but in the intervening years the focus has shifted away from legally binding The development of legally binding mechanisms to more voluntary norms What do you think happened to bring that change about and do you see this as an impediment to the progressive development and codification of space law? Thank you Peter and thank you for inviting me to this important panel I used to say that in corpus the committee on the peaceful uses of outer space Which is really the global level of the peaceful civilian space corporation Now comprising 100 states members with all the major space for our nations being involved and there are four phases of Governance so as you said correctly it started 1960 in 20 years the five United Nations treaties on outer space were formed by this intergovernmental body after that came a period of another 20 years from 1980 to 2000 where this body developed a set of principles for such set of principles Which were filling out certain areas that were already enshrined in the general principles Lay down in the legally binding instruments and after that period another 20-year mark with really looking into how states are implementing their rights and obligations under the treaties under the legally binding instruments so we looked into Registration practice national space legislation the notion or concept of what does launching state mean in reality the space debris mitigation guidelines the safety framework for nuclear power sources and 2019 the long-term sustainability guidelines so that also fulfills that period now 2021 another 20-year period what next what will we see I think that your question is interesting because The whole notion of legally binding non legally binding instruments It's not only that there is no consensus among the major actors to achieve a treaty bound regime It's also it's not only in itself. It's do we need legally binding instruments? Do we need new treaties? Maybe not It's also the period of 1950 to 1980 it was more of a a treaty making era across the board in order only space affairs But in other areas also and after that as we have seen gradually an era where there is more my looking into Voluntary non legally binding instruments, so there are various factors there I would say as just to conclude this Introductory remarks that I see this as part of the progressive development of international law We might debate what constitutes International law and where do the non legally binding instruments such as guidelines fit into the overall legally binding regime But I see this as part of the progressive development The impediment is to the codification of international law because that would not lead to a codification of rules of international law that are legally binding, so I would separate those two concepts Thank You Nicholas so then kind of continuing along this theme then Jenny the the rules a Framework for space includes not just the specific treaties, but also a broader body of international law Can you explain to us why that is the case and what other categories of international law might apply to space activities? Thank you for for that question and again also from my side Thank you for for the invitation and then for the organization of this in person meeting here in London So it's a pleasure to be here and and speak to everyone here in person I think some of the the elements were already well outlined by by Nicholas there just to to really to outline that the governance of space activities really consists of diverse Elements and as well well, let's say tools as it was mentioned by by the previous speaker So including the international legal framework the space treaties But also the understanding that international law applies to to space activities, but then also this international non-legally binding instruments software instruments not only those made in in the Committee on peaceful uses of outer space or within the United Nations, but also by different technical standardization bodies and As well as political understandings made outside the the scope of the United Nations coupled with the rise of national laws and of course these two that the last elements they they they come together because of of the private activities and the requirement to to Continuously supervise and license those activities they come hand-in-hand and of course for the legal framework it is in interesting and very understandable development that alongside those non-legally binding instruments we need National space laws to actually to implement those non-legally binding instruments to be binding at national level But then just to come to some of those challenges that might might come with that with that development Of course, there are the issue of fragmentation of of international framework once we we start to develop Through those non-legally binding instruments and and through national Loss so perhaps I just stopped the introductory remarks here and let's continue the discussion Yeah, yeah, that that is a point. I intend to come back to later is issue of fragmentation And also you you made the interest the important point that Non-binding does not mean non-legal in the sense that these non-binding Agreements that are reached in places like corpus are in a sense politically binding But they can be given legal character by being implemented in their national regulatory frameworks And we have to to enforce that or to to promote that So then perhaps moving on to the the commercial perspective And I'd like to address this question to Rajiv How how do you see this topic of rules-based order in space? And can you describe how the current order impacts commercial space operators? And do you see a level playing field for commercial actors? Operating across different jurisdictions Thanks, Peter. I think that's a critical question if we are to keep space as a productive asset for generations to come So I think this notion of rules-based order in space Frankly does not exist and hence, you know, hence the the idea of the Wild West because let's call us paid as paid There are massive launches to come. There are some hundred thousand Leo satellites that are probably going to be in place based on active projects by 2030 and maybe that's underestimated right because the filings are actually much more than that hundreds of thousands and I think it was Issa that said that we're not ready our current behavior in space is unsustainable And so we see three broad challenges. There's the space debris challenge There's the challenge of the environment because with you know decaying and Deorbiting satellites It's clear that there will be So much Illumina deposited in the earth's upper atmosphere that creates a climate change problem here on earth And that's why we say you're net zero in space is required for net zero on earth And then there's the orbital congestion problem, which is that you know in a particular orbital shell There are just too many satellites or the risk of collision is that much higher with the addition of you know, every every satellite But related to that there is the orbital exclusion problem, which is the monopoly formation in that Orbit so that you know one company or one state actor can monopolize, you know a particular orbit both are problems So if I think of the five requirements, we need to have to underpin a solution I think one is whatever solution.  It's non-binding, but these voluntary things don't work So I think you eventually have to have both monitoring and enforcement And it's got to be based on you know the science and technology but also an investment in in tools interoperable standards You know ASA active debris removal, you name it and we have to separate the issues of sustainability and national security and Then finally it's got to be fast, you know any day we would go for in imperfect solution You know rather than seek perfection for for years and years and decades to come So in that context we have issued as in much that a report today that calls for some serious recommendations And the summary recommendations are that number one National so that can be the fastest action when you give market access Nationally you only give sold based on sustainable behavior a plan for debris removal You know a plan for sustainability and if you're going to have you know, our two to four percent satellite failure You need to be able to have a plan to address that Second multilateral Key countries agree basic standards forward looking countries based on good satellite programs the UK countries in the in the UAE you US, you know Brazil Australia etc. Can come together to agree on some basic standards principles And even tools and then finally global so we're calling for a an extended mandate for ITU Which today basically has a mandate for Spectrum interference, but but not really a mandate for space sustainability So we're calling for an extended mandate and resources for them to be able to address space sustainability and finally, I mean we've got to act now Because every year there are going to be thousands of new Leo satellites being added into the earth separate Thank you Yeah, so this idea that the existing framework needs to be further developed. I'd like to sort of just pursue that That line a little bit further and address the following question to Andrew So one of the areas where the existing order is underdeveloped is on how to manage these new Commercial activities involving close proximity operation such as satellite servicing refueling and so on and I'm aware that the UK has been working on this issue Can you tell us a bit about how you're approaching developing a national framework for servicing and these other new kinds of commercial Close proximity operations. Yeah, absolutely. Peter. So yeah, good afternoon everyone As Peter mentioned, my name is Andrew Rackliffe. I'm chief engineer at the UK space agency and so to provide a bit of context So within the agency we have the officers of chief engineers So it's a group of engineers and scientists It's essentially support across the agency from implementing our large projects working through to sort of policy elements And that's critically important because in a lot of these policy discussions We need to ensure that they're evidence-based that they're building on an innate understanding of what the operators are intended to do And that the based on research and proven evidence So within the UK framework Would in July? 21 the space flight regulator when in the UK moved to the CAA so our civil aviation authority And that was really to create clear blue water between our funding body So the agency as those working with industry directly and then our regulator which is dealing with more the safety elements and the sustainability elements So within that the the CAA Space flight regulator is responsible for licensing our launch and orbital activities And that really works to obviously article six within the outer space treaty where we're where we're required to authorize and supervise national activities You look last year. We also released our space industry regulations So this was a flexible outcome based approach to national regulation. So rather than being prescriptive we work towards more an objective based Framework, but even before that came we had we licensed to Technology demonstrators on ADR. So the first one was removed debris. So this is a mission led by a Academic consortium from Surrey Space Center with a number of partners across Europe Including nervous and others and that tested a number of novel technologies from from nets to harpoons to Visual-based navigation technologies and we did that by engaging with the operator as well as the regulator by engaging with them to try and understand the risk And provide that education on what where we saw the risk Manifesting and then within that framework. We also licensed Elsa D, which is an astroscale mission Which again was demonstrating technology for ADR and that was really trying to leverage international best practice and so we look towards the international community to understand What what good looks like so looking towards ether and there's guidelines on Cpo the close proximity operations and others confers through the best practice their guidelines on operation So moving forward the UK's looking to develop a more comprehensive framework for In orbit service in the manufacturing missions and ADR And that's some of the work that's being led within the agency at the moment and working with the regulator And I have some my policy colleagues here today But there's obviously a number of challenges around developing that framework from from export issues around data exchange between companies around liability sharing between the various organizations involved So there are elements that we're working through and it's The teams of working in concert with industry and other regulators to try and develop a more comprehensive framework to regulate missions in the future Thank you. That's all very interesting and one of the points that Rises up in these sorts of discussions is the The degree of separation that one wants to have between regulation and promotion and implementation Whether whether those functions should be separated perhaps even within the two different ministries or under the same ministry And we might perhaps come back to this point and hear your thoughts on this Going back to one of the points that Rajiv made in his In his remarks you touched on the security aspect and We have on our panel based on all from the UN office of disarmament affairs So as I could you explain what UN ODA is is to this audience and Discuss what it's doing to promote a rules-based order in outer space Sure Thank you very much Peter. So UN ODA is responsible from supporting member states on their Multilateral negotiations mainly on outer space affairs Our mandate comes from the United Nations resolutions generally from the General Assembly or disarmament related affairs and From where Niklas sits in the UN USA and where we sit I generally get the question of like so what is the difference between these two bodies? Niklas as he mentioned he focuses and his team focuses on the peaceful uses of outer space in the sustainability side of the efforts At UN ODA we focus on the dark side of the matters, which is the security side I would say so that is really the clear difference between where we are and We generally support each other and work together to deliver the Secretary General's agenda on Peaceful uses of outer space so there is convergence between Niklas's work and our work and The second part of the question was promoting rules-based order. I believe Peter so what do we do to promote rules-based order? There are a few Activities that are taking place in the multilateral fora at the moment on the security side The conference on disarmament in Geneva is leading on the The frameworks that are legally binding measures and instruments That would be for preventing armstress in outer space, which is known as Paros It has got into some Clashes, unfortunately in recent years and for many years maybe that Because of those clashes what we had seen is a new UN General Assembly resolution in 2021 that was actually spearheaded by the United Kingdom on focusing on on an Open-ended working group discussion With regards to space threats through norms rules and principles of responsible behaviors So in one on one hand we're seeing this You know the the legal instruments and how to get that on board on the other hand We're seeing some countries pushing for the voluntary norms Stand so it's the same in the security side of the things Going back to I think your question to Niklas. I think it's important We need to see these processes complementary to each other rather than Competing with each other and and and probably if we kind of square that out and that Create that complementary aspect that would be really Helpful I would say and of course there's always this agreement going forward between our different Countries on on the security side of the things as well. So Finding nuances and approaches would always I think be helpful Thank you Yeah, so we we're aware of this sort of recent development around developing Discussing norms principles and so on of responsible behavior under the the first committee, right? It deals with the disarmament aspects but going back to it to the fourth committee bodies in corpus Nicholas where does this issue stand to then corpus? Do you see a push for stronger rules based order in space? Was it more a case of? more Better a stronger implementation of the already existing instruments be they binding or voluntary well it's it's quite a complicated question because It's it's not that easy to say that Either we want a rules based order meaning new legally binding instruments or Perfecting the already adopted instruments by by amendments Contra we don't want new legally binding instruments. We only want guidelines. No, I think it's a symbiosis there and There are of course in an intergovernmental body of hundred states member with all the major space-faring nations and quite many emerging space nations that are now for the first time Developing capabilities in launching and deploying small satellites in orbit for which they would be responsible under article 6 of the outer space treaty and Potentially had liable for damage caused to other space objects, etc So it's serious for all states government and of course then they have the responsibility to implement those obligations vis-a-vis Their their actors under their jurisdiction. So I would say no there is no no push for a More robust rule space order. We have already a rules-based order because we have five treaties Four sets of principles of five sets of principles and a range of supporting instruments that are supporting the implementation of the legally binding provisions, so we have a rules-based order The the important factor here is now and I would like to relate to what Jenny said that it's also a matter of How states are implementing their obligations and how they are taking this seriously in their national regulatory frameworks So that is where we really have an important factor here. How states are implementing those obligations and that I think is something that we will see more and more of and where states which already have Implemented they have a robust national regulatory system where they can serve as Advocacy for in a way for a good way of implementing those those obligations Particularly in the long-term sustainability area Implementing the the guidelines Peter and the sustainability area and there I need I think we need Far more interaction among all the states Members of the committee because that is the global ultimate global level in the peaceful uses of outer space I'm only addressing now civilians based activities and cooperation Yeah, and this is where for example the sharing of implementation Experiences is so important and I think where the UK is one of the countries that has prepared very useful documents that that other countries can look at as a sort of a Helpful sharing of implementation experience may I just just to say yes and to share Implementation experience and then what is very important is also how to transform this information into capacity building Training and awareness increasing and just to very quickly note that my office office for outer space affairs We work very closely with the UK space agency in trying to to spread the words How important is to implement those guidelines the long-term sustainability guidelines and try to to make him An awareness increasing campaign in this regard So I think that is a small step But it is an effort to to lead into a much stronger implementation among all Actors and I'm talking not only about major space fairer nations, but also emerging space. Yeah, absolutely I think that's such an important work that the office is doing because as as you well know The LTS guidelines are not prescriptive about their manner of implementation because you know negotiating and we recognize the the great diversity of ways in which countries plan And execute space activities and govern this space activity So the guidelines aren't prescriptive to allow that flexibility for implementation, but then it does raise questions And so that's why this capacity building is is so important Then if I could come back to a point that you had made earlier Jenny So as as Nicholas mentioned There's been a sort of a lack of appetite to negotiate new legally binding instruments in in recent years and the push to developing non-binding instruments that seek to clarify the application of the existing Treaties to new situations and contexts and as we know there are a number of soft law initiatives that purport to Support or clarify the existing treaties in one way or another and so my question is Could this proliferation of non-binding initiatives have unintended consequences of undermining or diluting The existing binding obligations contained in the treaties Thank you for that question Which I have to say is not an easy one But just to tap on something about what Nicholas was saying just to first start from from this that we yes We do have a rule-based international order starting from the outer space treaty and and the subsequent treaties Which are still relevant and applicable and and and provide for the for the foundation On on which then we can base on these other elements and other tools for the regulation of space activities Coming then together to this toolbox if you will And of course, this is something that that that is quite natural because of the development of the activities So the regulation has to develop alongside but but really We need to think about where and by whom should that regulation be made I Just don't also want to forget that the possibility of a binding treaty At that at some point so that we don't forget about this possibility while we do Work on with these non-legally binding instruments and and and those are currently the best Tools of regulation that we have together with with the national space laws But exactly this the issue of implementation and effect effective implementation and the way how to Implement in a way that doesn't fragment the the international regulation of space activities Really requires this symbiosis a bit that it's not a question either or but really how to how to make the the system interoperable together with those Say a legally binding and those less legally binding more politically binding But but eventually then through national law also binding at the national level and then of course navigating that is is not Uncomplicated so and and it provides for for legal effects that that we have to think about when elements Which are put together are not designed necessarily to live in this symbiosis So just to to look into some of the opportunities, of course you already mentioned also that the flexibility comes With having that sort of governance Framework and of course it responds to the needs of now and and and really answers to the technical Problems that that we are currently facing But of course this flexibility comes with with the challenge of certainty We heard many times earlier today that that the legal certainty is something that All the actors actually need be that that at international level or national level So so how to how to transfer that need into into this framework so so really just to Look into who who are making those non-legally binding incidents because that is not Homogeneous group. I mean we refer to them as non-legally binding instruments of law But it actually includes various different types of of of Guidelines standards and and and best practices and so who are making those and who are participating in in in making those And and whose values do they represent? So are they capable of for example? Responding to those values that are set out in the in the international framework So in the outer space treaty for example, and are they reflective of the public values that that those treaties? represent for example including the the notion of responsibility which Can be interpreted to to include sustainability and and safety and cooperation So just to really to underline as well that yes, it's not a uniform group they are not all the same and Even sometimes we refer to these especially in relation to space debris mitigation these internationally recognized Standards and guidelines and these are actually very different if you if you look into the details So so the devil is in details in in that respect as well and then just to perhaps just quickly Just to mention because standardization has been a topic that we've been discussing today So of course for example in relation to the international standardization organization that is not an international Intergovernmental organization where states take the floor similarly as as in couple or so consensus building there is not Exactly the same as it's among the 100 member states within couples Thank you So Rajiv I want to go back to a point you made earlier during your your last intervention where you pointed out to the The need for some some more clarity regulatory clarity So do you think that there's a need for more rules and treaties in space? Or is it a case that we need to develop a better understanding an Application of what we already have in place or is it a combination? Yeah, I think Peter I think the rules alone are not enough. You know, we need enforcement So that's the that's the difference. We don't even understand all of the risks We don't understand all of the impact. We need to act now before Before we regret prevention is better than cure We can't wait because there is an explosion In new satellites and we're talking about mega constellations and they're all well funded many of them The active projects are well funded by companies that can afford it can take the economic risk and Now some of them don't have a desire for near-term profit or China's 13,000, you know mega constellation or Rwanda's idea of 300,000 constellation. So all the billionaires that are You know taking the economic risk. So they will most likely happen is the point So I think we can't wait for global treaties and so as I said before there needs to be national action We know when you provide market access there needs to be multi lateral action with the countries that sort of advanced space nations that get this Followed by global and then somebody needs to have some teeth And and we're recommending that you know, maybe I to you is the one that needs to expand its mandate. So So no rules not enough. I think need enforcement Just add so I would say this is where groups such as the IADC city inter-agency space pre-coordination committee is so important because there are 13 space agencies All do an active research within in space debris and come together to do this fundamental research We should underpin anything we put forward in terms of guidelines because we need to understand As we were saying earlier about the unintended consequences if we adopt these rules and these guidelines And we don't know what the long-term impact is we could be making the situation worse And so this were within that framework of developing guidelines That's what organizations such as IADC are so important Thank you Just picking up on this on this point that Rajiv just made about the importance of monitoring and and enforcement. So You know this this obviously the monitoring capability is key to all of this and so Andrew, how well do you think we do that currently and what needs to be improved? Yes, thanks, Pia. And so within the UK So we're in the UK space agency. We have a team of orbital analysts. They work very closely With our MAD partners, so they're based at the UK Space Operations Center and they perform a range of Services, so they look at collision avoidance fragmentation and also reentry events and this is something that's provided commercially, but then also within government In terms of the data that they use it's both we're looking towards sort of commercial provision so partnering with Organizations such as numerica and leolabs and also that's used to supplement information that we get from US the space track and then also through government sensors But moving forward obviously there's there's Challenges in terms of this in terms of our capability to monitor obviously in terms of the environment itself There's obviously a large number of objects that are untrackable So we have a catalogue of objects that we know about obviously we can perform preventative operations to maneuvers to try and avoid those objects, but then as we as we move forward there's also increased complexity of missions So there's obviously an increase in the number of rideshare missions So launch vehicles that are going to deploy a large number of objects on orbit and to Catalog those objects as soon after deployment. It's very complex and as we see More flexible upper stages being launched to deploy small payloads We need to develop the tools and the capabilities to really Catalog and identify those objects sooner and Then also with the growth of population on orbit. There's issues around launch killers and avoidance So at the moment we screen our launches Within the launch window to ensure that when we do launch the launch vehicles that Going to avoid any objects on orbit So obviously as the population increases and those challenges increase so there's a need to improve our Capability to monitor the environment and act upon that information But I think importantly though that The monitoring elements of the prevention is only one part puzzle So the prevention needs to act alongside the mitigation So you need to ensure your platforms are designed to avoid fragmentation So that they perform end-of-life maneuvers that they have collision avoidance so they can perform Those maneuvers and then also we have the capabilities on on remediation That we have the capabilities to remove objects and only through the three of those elements Can we really work towards a sustainable environment and we can use that tool box that that ability to try and improve the environment Thank you So now now perhaps looking at some other domains, you know one sometimes here parallels being drawn between space and the cyber domains and The base I know that you you're an expert in the The governance of cyber issues so building on that background What are some of the lessons to be learned or paths to be? avoided From how the cyber community has worked on creating a rules-based order are there any lessons we can take from that Community thanks Peter. So on the cyber side things are moving a little faster probably then then it's going in the outer space side of the things But there are still challenges in the ICT domain as well But I would say probably one of the lessons learned from the cyber community. I think is that The community kind of like did not let let the differences the political differences Casting shadow on on the potential to reach consensus at the international for a and I think that that that is quite important There were around six group of governmental expert meetings on on ICT security And on I think in 2015 they came up with an agreement of voluntary non-binding norms And I think that's critical for the cyber community, but also it creates hopes for the outer space community as well During that negotiations an area that the In the cyberspace that they couldn't agree on was how to address International humanitarian law IHL and and that was kind of like a you know bottleneck point And and whether to create a consensus report or not So that decision was coming on and at the end they decided to use the principles within within the report So they referred to proportionality distinction humanity and so on we're not directly referencing without Directly stating IHL itself, but they just framed it on their legal principles So that kind of created all come all states to come together and agree that that could go forward and which then led to that 11 Voluntary norms to be to be at rest So we need to I think take that as a lesson learned for the outer space community as well There there will be no way of reaching a perfect agreement among amongst state parties. So states should be willing to give concession In in some regards when it comes I think the second lessons learned probably on this is that when this cyber community agreed on the 11 norms They stated that these norms should be just the baseline and and the states should continue to actually Upgrade these and add more norms as it comes So when when we have the discussion in the outer space side When states say oh, you know, but which which norm should be the priority which principle should be the priority Well, you know, we should be focusing on the ones that we can agree at this point And then and then come up in the long run of more norms and principles I think the the United States is moratorium on Benning ASAP tests for instance Missile test is a good way of thinking about those those norms in the long run To be coming forward. Canada also followed suit. I hope that other countries would join that that call And also, I think a third lessons learned for us is that multi stakeholder approach is really key and on the cyber side we had seen private sector really pushing forward on on Creating those principles working with the governments I don't need to I think name these private sector Entities, but like they're really well known So we need that push from the private sector as well in the outer space really to take the Lead and work with the governments and and that would be really helpful An area probably to avoid Is to create dual track approaches? There was a point I think in the cyber discussions where we had seen both a GG group of governmental experts and and an Open-ended working group working on the same kind of subject It kind of dilutes the the capacity the capability the resources that many states have not not everyone is you know Not every country has the same level of capability and capacity So we need to understand that working on one area would be probably Achievable in the long run and of course there are links with you know technical links that supply chain security Security by design concepts that's mentioned like preventing collusion risks and so on maturity models So all of those are really linked between each other between space and and the cyber field Thank You Beza So we've had a quite a few very interesting questions submitted by the audience. I thank you. Thank you for that I'm going to try and address as many as I can in the time available and I I may combine some of them That are sort of along similar lines. So One of the questions is how do we get out of this? the situation of everyone must agree Before moving forward isn't Isn't this keeping us back from reaching Agreements since we agree it's it's urgent to address some of these issues from a regulatory or operation or other perspectives So there's that and related to that is How do we ensure that geopolitics on the ground doesn't affect the safety and sustainability of operations in space? Anyone would like to Have a go at that Jenny. Yes, if I can just at least address some of those points there Everyone has to agree has its certain Advantages I mean especially when when in in couples when we talk about among the 100 member states if we can reach Consensus which takes long which you know very well But this consensus is important when we come into this effective implementation phase So once now we have to start to implement all these non-legally binding instruments at national level Having reached that consensus having agreed with everyone On on what is to be implemented is is actually quite strong tool We just have to make sure that we've understood The guidelines in the same way and this comes also through then what was mentioned earlier as well these reporting That some states have already started so that we we can in a way verify and monitor that that we've understood them in the same way but here Agreeing together is actually quite strong The class yeah an example on how to move forward You know if I say so on the implementation or the the future Development on the long-term sustainability about space activities at least in the coopers context so for for pillars for bullets Starts with capacity building and awareness, and we have started that already, but it's not enough There is really a need for an increased dialogue between governments Regulators and private sector entities under the jurisdiction That is that must happen, and it's not only in the major space for our nations But all around the world because also in emerging space nations that is really also a push for a stronger space economy that would support a I would say societal growth So that is that dialogue is essential at the intergovernmental level at the global level, which means coopers We need a more structured reporting on how we implement the guidelines So those states that can share it's not enough that they just do it It must must be organized and structured in a way so that we can relate to the various elements and factors in In in helping other states to benefit from from that knowledge and lastly we need and I would say Sooner than later we need a structured information exchange at that intergovernmental level on space objects and events And that was one of the real concerns behind the LTS guidelines on avoiding collisions avoiding Orbital breakups and control re-enters and all of that space objects and events, but we need it structured If we do this and if we manage it well at the global level, we will see emerging or embryos for space traffic Coordination whether we're talking about a top-down approach regime at the international level or a bottom-ups Space traffic management Understanding we will see elements that will fit closer into STM if we do that Thank you. So this is another question that has been touched on by a number of the The participants Is that how do we avoid a situation? We talk about rules-based order, right? Who gets to make the rules? How do we avoid a situation where this the rules are made or imposed unilaterally by certain nations or groups of like-minded nations? I mean, I think the best way to avoid that situation is is really to To channel the efforts at the multilateral level Incorporate countries that may not have the same capability or the capacity that the like-minded nation nations have We are seeing different groups it on the security side We're seeing different groups coming together And you know from different geographies, I would say and they do not necessarily agree with each other I mean you would see countries some countries asking for No first placement of weapons in outer space Whereas some other countries indicate that what is a weapon? We do not know so we can't actually agree on that and go forward with that We would like to go with the norms approach the good thing that's happening that I am actually observing Is that these states talk with each other? They do not you know, they come to the table Yes with their own interests and everything but they still put their ideas Forward and they do not shut down and and that's the key point We need to at the end come up with a common understanding and the good point another point on this is that Countries that currently do not have the same capacity and capability are also speaking up and they're they're indicating that They also have a stake on on on this and they should be involved in the discussions And that's really key I think especially for developing countries or less developed countries to be to be on the same side and and Nicholas's point on capacity building is really key in outer space on the security side of the issues as well Because what we're seeing is that if countries are not involved in the negotiations at the earlier stage Then when it comes to the later stage, they just find themselves being embedded into something that they have not been You know brought in from the beginning and that's never helpful Bottom line is that we need better regulation of Leo to address orbital congestion physical collision risk and orbital exclusion economic monopoly formation risk We need that and it is not difficult for national regulators to take position on Well, if I'm going to give market access if you're going to give market access then we would like to see a sustainability plan Right, however, we define that in the end and then it doesn't have to be at this multi-stakeholder level It doesn't have to be like-minded countries. That's a start It can be sort of greater than that but the reality is that time is of the essence So it just cannot carry on for years and years and third. Let's give somebody a mandate and it seems like one Maybe it's not perfect, but you know, it's done a fairly good job of spectrum interference management and so on and it is the ICT body so that could be one with an expanded mandate But we need regulation, right? We just it cannot be that we've grown from, you know, 1400 satellites in 2014 to about 5,000 satellites now We're going to go to 100,000 and then we're going to keep debating this without much action So we have to stop being a talking shop at some point and make stuff happen So just following on this, I mean if we all agree on regulations rules of behavior And as we all know currently there is no international space police, right to enforce the rules that we agree on so Is it's how can we Encourage compliance, what what is the role of multilateral bodies in in encouraging compliance to what extent Is it necessary to be able to demonstrate that the rules that we all agree on are being followed? I'll take that first. So I think just following on from what Nicholas said earlier So within the LTS and guidelines when in 21 agreed that that part a is on national frameworks And so we're in some of the activities within the UK. We've looked at in partnership with, you know, sir We have looked at what implementation looks like and so within that UK takes its responsibilities in terms of authorizing supervising activities in space Very it's very important to us. So we have developed a strong. We feel registry framework and we're here to share Experiences the approaches that we've we've learned would engaging with industry would engaging with those looking to license to support Those emerging space nations and support their development and implementation of those registry frameworks Thank you example of the RCEP situation that happened recently in France where a number of satellite operators and Others and the space agency said that there's a space debris Issue that we should look into but in the end what happened was that RCEP said our remit is only about spectrum And so it's not about space sustainability Even if most parties agree that there is an issue of space sustainability So that is the thing we need to change and give some teeth and ask for Plans that be removal, you know sort of data etc. Like like you commented Andrew Before you provide market access because before you know it there won't be a lot of market access to give in certain orbits I would also add Peter that Compliance is really hand-with-hand with Accountability, so we really need to have the account like a framework for accountability to hold You know actors accountable from their for their actions Yeah, which is Easier said than done accountability to whom Yeah, it could be the nation it could be at the national level It could be at the international level It's I think it's really the stakeholders to decide on what type of accountability would work for outer space in the cyber side We're seeing different levels. We were seeing you know local national Legislations, we are also seeing the international framework coming together on attribution and so on so it really depends how you Have the stakeholders would like to take that on board for me No, no, I agree because Rajiv you mentioned that you know one thing is Driving towards more rules-based order Contra that is we'll need to look into enforcement and as we know the legal regime and outer space does not have any dedicated Enforcement mechanisms, of course, it's a discipline under the international laws So the international law applies, but we don't have that enforcement in trying in the legal regime on outer space So then comes the accountability question must come from inside from the actors themselves We are accountable to Ourselves in a way so picking up on this theme as a excellent question along this these lines here Um, the question is regulators can't act without a mandate and typically only gonna gain a mandate after a catastrophe How best to bring the precautionary principle from environmental practice Into space so that we don't act after it's too late Because as Nikola said this accountability from within is I think that's where the issue is right So if I'm going to put up in discriminate number of leo satellites Don't have a plan for space to be removal don't have a plan for a disposal orbit that I can sort of put some of these objects in which Maybe my failure rate is more than 2 to 4 percent or even 2 to 4 percent is a big deal Uh and You know no plan for a placeholder orbit below 400 kilometers altitude where you can actually put your satellites first before you take it up Where the risk of failures occur? And if it's all voluntary, I'm going to give it my best shot. It'll be best effort But you know what it is what it is if I create debris for the next 50 years So that is the issue or if you're not going to follow the uh the april 2022 ruling from the us on you know kinetic ASAT And there's going to be more missile testing as have or attacks that happened recently in in russia from russia I mean there has to be at some point accountability and accountability comes with consequences like a drive on a road And I want to protect myself and my fellow Fellows on the road, but there was the driving rule and there's a point-based system So for instance in the uk so You know there are just so you can you can make a fault you can have a penalty and then you get a point Three points or whatever in the next time, you know There's greater accountability But the point is this notion of self-enforced accountability has its limits and I think we're testing it right now And if you're going to have 50 000 satellites in three years time and you know 100 000 in a few years time It will just be too late to have experimented with you know with voluntary mechanisms But I would say that's that's where um and um Within the uk so we have the civilization authority and that's where through the authorization process They work very closely with the operators And they try and understand the mission as deeply as possible So they have technical teams within within the cAA who delve into the collision risk to try and understand The end of life disposal plans to really understand ahead of licensing ahead of authorizing the mission to to launch That we're confident that they're meeting A set of international best practices and then post launch and there's supervision activities So there's monitoring their activities through Health checks or or ensuring that they follow rules that have been agreed ahead of time essentially right so you're saying Before we get market access we want to see your plan After that we want to supervise and monitor But then is there any enforcement if things go wrong? Well, you would hope that within the authorization process that you're already authorizing those that you're confident Will meet the requirements Um, so you don't allow operators on orbit that are necessarily not going to meet your expectations essentially That's a good start. That'll be a great start So, uh, Rajiv, it seems that your suggestion to expand the mandate of rtu has elicited some um uh response from the audience and so one of the questions here is It seems that the the mandate to The suggestion to expand the mandate of itu is a good one Even if itu is an imperfect body What do the other panelists think of this proposal and would they be able to suggest any other alternatives? so question to the other panelists I mean I come from the one side and niclas is the same so for us It's more on the multilateral law of fora and And So I would I would pass on that question. Peter if you don't mind Okay, I mean to be clear our report Is probably imperfect, but it's a starting point for for actions and not only have we recommend these three big summary recommendations We actually have a recommendation for any every other forum or organization of influence So there are detailed recommendations. So if it's not itu, it's somehow better idea Great, but then now is the time to put out a report and start to talk around that's a starting point And that's how we've approached it and we're not fixated on it has to be itu, but it seems like it's it's uh one practical Body I think that that I experienced with managing spectrum and could be given an existing mandate could be somebody else But as long as there is the mandate It needs to be an independent body And an independent body so that's the key Absolutely right Okay Changing direction then another question here. How should the development of counter space capabilities fit into a rules based order? I think that's that's my Counter space capabilities. Well, it's a really good question. So it really goes back to the Point about the ASAT capabilities for instance or Laser desling cyber capabilities Electromagnetic interferences so all of these capabilities actually led to the formation of the open-ended working group on on norm's rules and principles of responsible behaviors because States realize that it's no longer about the the big bang in a way of The activities that are taking place it could be different type of activities as well as counter space activities that might be led into destabilization of outer space and in security in outer space So it is already factored in and it's already within the discussions among different states on counter space capabilities but the problem is the the Competition I think And and the arms race that's going on in outer space is really kind of Putting most of the efforts that's going on in the multilateral for a little bit behind and and I I would like us to think the outer space issue on the security side really within the framework of larger security Issues that we are facing And that everything needs to work together to to solve one another We can't just solve the outer space piece without solving the larger Issues on the security environment itself Thank you. Yeah, peter. Yes. Yes. Um, this is important because I mean we have the notion of the broader perspective of space security, which encompasses safety security and sustainability And you know peter because you were part of it the eegee eegee report on the tcbms Transparency and confidence building measures in outer space activities that came 2013 and Which was in a way if I may use that word revolutionary because it came with a new concept a new innovation that We all we need to look into the safety and sustainability in order also to address security and vice versa That doesn't mean that we are we have we we should or I would say we should We shouldn't but to blur The way that the the system is working So cupos is dealing with certain mandated areas And then we have the security dimension being addressed in other fora that that should continue We should be careful in how we relate to security in cupos and safety and sustainability In the security Domain, but we need to be aware That we are dealing with a dual use environment here And we need to be aware that whatever is decided in security Context also would have effects on the safety and sustainability and vice versa So we need to be aware of that So I I think that's really really important because In the discussions really what we are seeing in cupos and the Poros and oe wg forum It comes to the points on dual use or dual purpose Related work. So space debris is part of that for instance rpo activities that are another example of that And I understand the siloed approach that we are following within the united nations and that needs to be protected But we need to find ways of really if it is about space debris What is it about space debris that needs to be discussed within the security forum, which is the intentional deliberate use perhaps And what is it about space debris that needs to be discussed within the peaceful uses and sustainability forum That the differentiation really needs to be made in a clear way Yeah, and perhaps I'm just following Following this thread There's a question here about The the chance that a rules-based order being subverted by gray zone activities And Is is there is there a risk that Engaging in these kinds of activities may push these gray zone activities further underground and make them more difficult to identify and and track Bays, I don't know if that's a question for you. Maybe yeah. Yeah, it is So on the gray zone Activities, I mean it's it's an important and interesting question because they are the type of activities They're under the threshold of warfare. So By by the definitions really hard to apply the the existing international Legal instruments into these type of activities But they are lowering also the threshold in a way of conflicts, too So there needs to be really More discussion on on these type of operations that are taking place that are under the threshold of conflict But but should be viewed as you know irresponsible behavior probably I think it would really fit into that The norms rules and you know principles framework to look at the this side of the issue and and I mean We need to understand that just because something is not legally You know made or there's no legal agreement on that. It does not mean that countries should follow that action Just because there's no legal agreement doesn't mean that you should continue, you know responsibly of all of your actions So I think this information campaigns along with Gray zone activities Hybrids activities would fit into that framework Coming back into lessons that can be learned from other domains Are there are there other domains that have lessons to to offer Based on principles from economics or or other disciplines that we could apply Speed I think is one issue. I think you know the issue here is that This was less of a problem in the past because there were not that many space players, right? So now there's a greater probability of a bad actor because of mega constellations the issue is in constellations of issues mega constellations So there's a higher risk of negative impact. I think just a few principles Reaffirmed space as a common province of humankind That's a that's a good lesson Start to enforce this principle Another is peaceful use of outer space No more asat testing No more clandestine, you know proximity operations Article 9 of the outer space treaty regarding harmful interference needs standards and coordination mechanisms for crisis management under new and binding regulations And I think climate change is there's a big lesson here, right? You want net zero on earth, you're not going to get it if there's no net zero in space Thank you So our time is catching up with us. We only have a few minutes left. So I'd like to to wrap up by Inviting all of the panelists to Give us your key takeaway message in terms of what you think is the most important or most urgent thing That we should do to strengthen the rules based order in outer space and I'll start at the far end Of the parliament work this way Okay, thank you. So I don't have time to think of my answer As I said, uh, we have a rules based order already It's now a matter of looking into how national implementation of the obligations and rights under that order Must be taken forward Because as as has been said that other tragedies in particular that we don't have much time We need to take action, but it always boils down to the national level So that is my my tip implementation, but look at it structurally Right implementation at national level and that's where you also get the teeth as well, right? Yeah Okay, basic I'm going to follow up with Rajiv said on climate. I think issues because Climate emergency is really interesting. It's just like pushed up the the climate agenda really forward So maybe we should be actually thinking about Emergency in outer space and how can we as a community push that forward? Acknowledge for instance And perhaps declare that humanity is in an under emergency And that what type of priorities and actions that needs to be tackled within that emergency It's not only the states. It's also the private sector perhaps to to put up policies around, you know What they would do to tackle such emergency What they would do to mitigate the risks around that emergency Perhaps we need to think about some target points as well in the climate emergency community There are target points. Can we come up with those type of You know points of you know, where should we be going or where should be me not going? The first session or the second session was interesting interesting in that regard They discussed about modeling and modeling approaches. We really need database evidence evidence-based notions and that for for For targets. So I would I would just say that Thank you. Love the comments. So back now to get things right for future generations. The solution is three pronged national as we've said multilateral and global where there is an expanded mandate for some Agency that is neutral Thank you I think I'd follow on from the the evidence-based Elements so we need to know what environment we're targeting what what where are we going in terms of what are the long-term evolution of the environment So we can really understand and develop The guidelines and the operational practices and the technologies that mean that we can eventually get to that that point So I would say funding fundamental research into the environment be the key thing Okay So acting responsibly Requires cooperation So it's it's between all the actors and all the levels and also connecting the dots from other areas So that we can tap on on the lessons learned from what we do in climate change or the green and and digital Transition what we can learn and how we can use that for ensuring sustainable use of outer space And that's really something that the cooperation element and talking to everyone is what we need in in navigating that sort of difficult and complex Regulatory framework and and really to make the connection between the international level and and the national level. Thank you Well, thank you for being so succinct with your key takeaways Well, there you have it the key takeaways from our panelists and they've kept very well to their time So this brings us to the end of this panel. Thank you very much to all of you who contributed questions I'm sorry. We couldn't get through all of them. I'll try to combine as many as I could But let us please join me in giving our panelists a round of applause


QuickBooks Online 2023, taxes, business car and trucks, expenses, deduction, get ready to earn the skills needed to boost your bank books on up with QuickBooks Online 2023. Support Accounting Instruction by clicking the link below giving you a free month membership to all of the content on our website broken out by category further broken out by course each course then organized in a logical reasonable fashion making it much more easy to find what you need than can be done on a YouTube page. We also include added resources such as Excel practice problems, PDF files and more like QuickBooks backup files when applicable. So once again, click the link below for a free month membership to our website and all the content on it. Here we are in our QuickBooks Online test company file using the account view as opposed to the business view you can toggle between the two views by going to the cog up top and switching the view down below. We've been looking at tracking the miles using the QuickBooks Online tracking tools primarily focused on giving information to sole proprietors for helping with their tax preparation and the automobile deduction using the mileage method. And in the account view this is located on the left hand side under mileage. This is the intro screen we saw last time when we skip that intro screen we see a screen like this. Now I just want to reiterate that most of the information on this screen is not really adding anything to the financial statements the balance sheet and the income statement but is more informational type of stuff. So before we understand how we can put this into our bookkeeping system to help us with our taxes we want to get an idea of the deductibility of auto expenses on the taxes. So let's talk about that now. Most of this information is coming from Publication 334 Tax Guide for Small Businesses for Individuals Who Use Schedule C Tax Year 2022 which you can find on the IRS website irs.gov.irs.gov. This is the first page of the Form 1040 noting that if you are a sole proprietorship you will typically have another schedule a Schedule C that will flow into Schedule 1 and ultimately flow in here to Line 8 of the Form 1040. This is a screenshot of a Schedule C which is a profit or loss from business the form typically needed to be added if you are a sole proprietorship and you can see it basically consists of an income statement income minus expenses. Our focus here is on a particular type of expense that being the auto deductions related to a vehicle type of expense and there's a couple different ways we might deal with being able to take that deduction which will have some implications on how we might be setting up our bookkeeping and tracking our miles within software such as a quick book. So we have car and truck expenses. If you use your car or truck in your business you may be able to deduct the costs of operating and maintaining your vehicle. You may also be able to deduct other costs of local transportation and traveling away from home overnight on business. Local transportation expenses include the ordinary and necessary costs of all of the following when we're looking at deductions related to a sole proprietor Schedule C type of business will often see the term ordinary and necessary for expenses which are basically deductions on the Schedule C. Those are the expenses that we needed to consume in order to help us to generate the revenue. Once again local transportation expenses include the ordinary and necessary costs of all of the following getting from one workplace to another in the course of your business or profession when you are traveling within the city or general area that is your tax home. So I have a few definitions involved here but generally the idea is in your general vicinity of your tax home you're doing you're traveling within that vicinity and they're kind of trying to carve out the concept of commuting and one reason they might be doing that is because if you were a W2 employee as opposed to a sole proprietor you don't typically get to deduct your commute to your place of employment. So that's what we kind of have to figure in when we're talking about the local transportation. So then in order to figure that we have to kind of determine what our tax home is to figure out what is going to be a commute and what might not be a commute right. Visiting clients or customers so obviously when you're going to a client or customer that's generally not going to be a commuting type of situation because now you're visiting a location that you're not commuting to on a regular basis or is your primary place of business. Going to a business meeting away from your regular workplace so you have your regular workplace note that your regular workplace you might have a home office for example but if you're working someplace other than your home office you would think if that was your primary place of work the commute to that office would be a commuting type of situation but if you go into another meeting that's not to that office then you would think that that would be a local transportation type of expense where you'd be tracking the miles and whatnot. So getting from your home to a temporary workplace when you have one or more regular places of work these temporary workplaces can be either within the area of your tax home or outside of that area. Local business transportation does not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight so the tax code kind of breaks up the type of expenses for travel such as driving your car for the local travel that's around your tax home and the longer distance travel that you might have which would mean usually that means that you're going to be spending the night you know outside of your local area for example. So those expenses are deductible as travel expenses and are discussed later under travel and meals so however if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight use the rules in this section to figure your expense deduction so in other words if you have the overnight travel then you might be using some other means to get there like an airplane or a bus or something like that but if you're using your car then you might be able to track the mileage in a similar type of fashion as we would be talking about in our quick book system. So generally your tax home is your regular place of business regardless of whether you maintain your family home it includes the entire city or general area in which your business or work is located. Example you operate a printing business out of a rented office space you use your van to deliver completed jobs to your customers so you can deduct the cost of round trip transportation between your customers and your print shop caution you cannot deduct the cost of driving your car or truck between your home and your main or regular workplace because that's basically the commuting costs right so these costs are personal commuting expenses and again you can kind of mirror that and think about it I think about it as though the tax code is trying to make it fair between the sole proprietor and the W-2 worker the W-2 worker doesn't get commuting deductions to commute to their place of employment so office in the home so then the question obviously will come up what if my home is my office right so then your workplace can be your home if you have an office in your home that qualifies as your principal place of business so for more information see business use of your home later. Example you are a graphic designer you operate your business out of your home your home qualifies as your principal place of business you occasionally have to drive to your clients to deliver your completed work you can deduct the cost of the round trip transportation between your home and your clients because obviously your home is your principal place of business in this case and you're driving to your clients and therefore you would think that would be a transportation something that you can deduct right which means we would track the miles for those type of trips so methods for deducting car and truck expenses so for local transportation or overnight travel by car or truck you can generally use one of the following methods to figure your expenses so here's where it gets a little tricky you've got the standard mileage rate and you've got the actual expenses now when we're thinking about the quickbooks system of tracking miles we would be thinking we're probably using the standard mileage rate which is quite common but it gets a little bit tricky when we use the standard mileage rate because we're probably deducting the normal expenses in quickbooks related to the automobile which includes you know gasoline and maintenance and that kind of stuff so we cannot take both the actual expenses and the mileage and use the mileage method we would then be doubling up on the deductions so therefore if we're using the mileage method so what we have to do from a quickbooks standpoint is say okay am I using the mileage method or am I using the actual expenses method if I'm using the mileage method how can I integrate the tracking of the miles to make the mileage method easy for me to to help my tax professional at the end of the year is the is the general idea and do I need to integrate that into my financial statements in some way shape or form so that's what we'll take a look at in future presentations so standard mileage rate so you may be able to use the standard mileage rate to figure the deductible costs of operating your car van pickup or panel truck for business purposes that's where the rate generally I believe is being pulled from when you're looking at the quickbooks system in terms of the rate that they were using to figure you know the benefits that you might get so the business standard mileage rate from january 1st 2022 to june 30th 2023 it's 58.5 cents per mile the business standard mileage rate from july 1st 2022 to december 31st 2022 is 62.5 cents per mile they actually divided it up in 2022 and then it's going to go up in 2023 and later in compliance or in alignment hopefully with inflation as inflation goes up these rates you would think would go up as well caution if you choose use the standard mileage rate for a year you cannot deduct your actual expenses for that year except for business related parking fees and tolls this becomes a bookkeeping problem because now when I actually pay stuff on a cashed based system which is many small businesses want to do they're going to be charging their expenses based on the bank feeds when things go out of their checking account when they're auto related we're going to be tracking those items for taxes if I'm going to use a mileage method then I have to I have to basically remove the expenses that were the cash actual expenses and replace it with the mileage method in some way except we might still be able to get some actual expenses on top of the mileage method such as parking fees and tolls so choosing the standard mileage rate if you want to use the standard mileage rate for a car or truck you own you must choose to use it in the first year the car is available for use in your business so in later years you can choose to use either the standard mileage rate or actual expenses one of the reasons I believe this is the case is because if you were able to put the car or truck on the books in the first year and take the actual expenses which could include depreciation and possibly accelerated depreciation then you can take a large expense in the first year and then switch to the mileage method which still gives you a pretty good deduction in following years so in order to stop that the the iris is going to say okay well you have you may have to choose you know you don't get to switch back and forth possibly if you're going to be taking the actual if you use the actual method right so if you want to use the standard mileage rate for a car or truck you own you must choose to use it in the first year the car is available for use in your business so if you choose to use the standard mileage rate for a car you lease you must use it for the entire lease period including renewals standard mileage rate uh not allowed you cannot use the standard mileage rate if you so this is when you can't use the standard mileage rate number one operate five or more cars at the same time number two claimed a depreciation deduction using any method other than straight line for example acres or makers in other words when you take the actual mileage uh the actual deduction method you might be able to take depreciation and makers is an accelerated depreciation method meaning you get to deduct more in the first year so that's what they're going to be skeptical of on the irs you take a big deduction for actual expenses in the first year including this big lump depreciation and then switch over to the mileage method which still gives you a significant amount of deduction and that seems like kind of double dipping uh on so that's why there's limitations three claimed a section 179 deduction on the car that's an accelerated depreciation in the first year which again you'd probably only do if you had if you were taking the actual using the actual method four uh claimed the special depreciation similar to 179 you would only do that it's kind of a form of depreciation if you were not doing the mileage method in first year five claimed actual car expenses for a car you leased or six are a rural mail carrier who received a qualified reimbursement all right so then we have the parking fees and tolls in addition to using the standard mileage rate you can deduct any business related parking fees and tolls so when we break out our bookkeeping and quickbooks then to try to figure out our taxes we might want to break out our items between parking fees and tolls because you know in their own account because those we might still be able to get even over and above the mileage method we're taking so you can see how this kind of influences possibly our bookkeeping here so parking fees uh you pay to park your car at your place of work or non-deductible commuting expenses okay actual actual expenses if you if you do not choose to use the standard mileage rate you may be able to deduct your actual car or truck expenses so how what are you going to do then you're going to ask your accountant to figure out which is better so if you qualify to use both methods figure your deduction both ways to see which gives you a larger deduction now oftentimes the actual method uh write-off method will give you the bigger deduction but that may only happen in year one and you're going to be using the car for five to ten years so you really kind of want to think about what the best deduction would be over the lifespan of the car which gets a little bit complicated but once you figure it out if you're using the actual method or the mileage method that could influence how how you're going to track your your miles within quickbooks so actual car expenses include the cost of the following so in other words these are the costs that you would have related to your vehicle if you were using the actual method as opposed to the mileage method this is the stuff that you don't have to track as as rigorously if using the mileage method instead of the actual method the big one is depreciation depreciation is a pain to calculate takes a whole another kind of form to kind to kind of do and it's not something that normal like small businesses often do in their sole proprietor bookkeeping it's got to be done by the tax software it's not too difficult for tax software to do but it's uh that's the one that's kind of a it's not a cash-based thing right you're not tracking it in your normal bookkeeping it's an accrual thing so garage rent gas insurance these are stuff that normally of course we would be tracking in our bookkeeping system lease payments licenses oil parking fees registration repairs tires tolls these are all things that except for the depreciation that we would typically see going through our checking account if using bank feeds and quickbooks and recording the expense to auto expense of some kind we might have separate subcategories breaking all this stuff out but and the insurance is also particularly kind of tricky because we might group that with other insurance like liability insurance but we probably want to group it more with the auto expenses because it may or may not be deduct deductible depending on the method that we're going to use and we might want to break out the stuff that could be deductible even if we're using the the mileage rate like tolls I believe that that that might still be deductible even if we are using the mileage rate all right so if you use your vehicle for both business and personal purposes you must divide your expenses between business and personal use this also becomes tricky so you can divide your expenses based on the miles driven for each purpose this is what quickbooks is basically helping us to do we're driving around and we can basically allocate you know the miles to business or personal example you are the sole proprietor of a flower shop you drove your van 20,000 miles during the year 16,000 miles were for delivering flowers to customers and 4,000 miles were for personal use including commuting miles you can claim only 80 80 percent 16,000 over 20,000 of the cost of operating your van as a business expense so if you're using actual write-off method like depreciation and so on you would have to then you know limit it to 80 percent right but if you're using the mileage method then you would use the business miles so more information for more information about the rules for claiming car and truck expenses you can see publication 463 this is on the IRS website you can search for it irs.gov irs.gov reimbursing your employees for expenses so you can generally deduct the amount you reimburse your employees for car and truck expenses in other words you might try to use this mileage thing on quickbooks for example to help determine how far your employees are driving or whatnot to try to track their miles and whatnot and you might be using that for a reimbursement of some kind of of that based on the miles right instead of actual expenses you're going to base it on how far they've driven you have some kind of reimbursement type of system you can imagine using quickbooks tool for that as well as although that doesn't look to be its primary objective and if you were to do that then when you pay them in quickbooks we would see the reimbursements right so we can track possibly miles determine the reimbursement amounts and then of course the expenses would be coming out of the checking account using the bank feeds and we can record them you know appropriately at that point so the reimbursement you deduct and the manner in which you deduct it depend in part on whether you reimburse the expenses under an accountable plan or a non-accountable plan so if that's applicable you can dive into those in more detail on the iris website you can start your search there for details you can see chapter 11 of publication 535 iris.gov iris.gov that chapter explained accountable and non-accountable plans and tells you whether to report the reimbursement on your employee's W-2


Imagine if the day one they would have killed a million New Yorkers The war would have ended what America has done in the Middle East to turn it upside down and intervention there oil hair oil There come on funding one group against another. What is war? What's about destruction and killing? What rules? What is no rules? There's no absolute zero Communism you mentioned communism. Why are so many Atheists secular people why do they tend to be more on the left of economically socialist communists they have a Soft spot for this ideology. Why if we can say God does not exist and we do not have to derive our morality from God Why do we then turn and say well now we need to derive our morality from governments and now government has become the God No, I don't think that's the problem. I think the issue is that Most secularists and you can see this in the New Atheists Do not challenge Moral do not challenge the religious morality. They've accepted religious morality. They just take away God But they've accepted the idea that is at the heart of Christianity That the purpose of your life is to serve other people I saw you made a connection between communism and Christianity and that Jesus gets some sort of communism I know a lot of Republicans will be jumping out of their seat. How could you say no Jesus is a communist? That's crazy Well first of course he is I mean if you're in our communists, but he's definitely on the socialist side I mean on the spectrum just read read some amount. I mean you can see it, but that's the point is this morality Trump's politics and The moral code that everybody out there accepts is a moral code of sacrifice Your life is not important. What's important is what you do for other people and this is Christian This is a Christian morality. This comes from Christianity This is why we adore Mother Teresa and hate Bill Gates even though Bill Gates has helped more poor people the mother Teresa I could even my competition, but we love we adore Mother Teresa in the culture Why because she sacrificed because she suffered because she gave because she didn't do anything for herself Self-interest is the devil. It's the evil according to you know at the end of the day according to Christianity What Marx did is secularize Christianity what Mark did is saying you're right your life me is meaningless You should sacrifice to that group, but it's it's not God. You should sacrifice You should sacrifice purely to your fellow man and your fellow man is equal to you and every so what So the change Christianity does is it changes God to the polytheism instead of it's an even has Marxism and even even even they even have their own Pope, right? So so in Christianity you as an individual don't know the truth you have to go through a pope in order to reveal truth, right? Well in in communism, it's exactly the same you as a member of the polyterian don't know what's good for the polyterian So you need a dictator right and the dictator is the pope He's the one who communes with the spirit of the polyterian and then communicates to you What's good for the polyterian your life doesn't matter what matters is the polyterian and you need to do whatever It takes to make the polyterian better off including die if that's if that's what it means, right? And and this is the point of all moral systems that exist today except objectivism really, right? Your life doesn't matter as an individual what matters is the life of the group of God and Therefore communism is palatable. What's wrong with communism?  We can't challenge it And that's what I ran down. She challenges it for the first time. Okay, I Find your views on foreign policy and war probably the most controversial And they just they wreck consequences. So my views on everything else. So could I quote you? I think this is a near-back quote. You can tell me if I'm wrong Where's he gone? I've lost a quote, but you said that when you were fighting in a war This whole just war theory you are completely against the absolute and you say that if we need to again correct me if I'm wrong If we need to kill innocent civilians in the process then so be it We should not limit our military action because some innocent civilians die We need to crush our enemy at all costs. Yes. Come what may. Yeah, assuming there was a worst self-defense Assuming you were attacked first. So let's say Mexico attacked the United States Then anybody who dies in the war between Mexico and the United States is is the responsibility of the Mexican government They initiated force if a criminal if a criminal comes and he and he shoots you and I you know And I'm shooting back and by accident.  Is it my fault? Or is it his fault? It's clearly Molly his responsibility for initiating force and the same thing is for a government if a government initiates force against me Then the only responsibility that's in the American government the only responsibility of the American government in defending itself It's to defend itself in what does it mean to defend itself to defend the lives and property of America's it has no Concerns with the life and property of Mexicans.  Why my only job as a government is to protect my troops So let me count that with an example. So let's say me and you get into a boxing match Yeah, right with a glove and then out of nowhere you kick me. Yeah, that's not in the rules Yeah, of boxing. Yeah, so I'm saying the same way. There's a war. Yes You have to defend yourself draw war, but there are certain rules even within the war that a military should not, you know, break That to me is insanity. So I mean War is about what is war was about destruction and killing what rules? What is no rules? There's no absolute zero nuclear chemical kids children Bombing a church for example, advocating for killing children Absolutely, you do. I mean, there's only one principle in war when Quickly with minimal casualties to your own side. I mean, I consider Hiroshima Nagasaki To new dropping in the nuclear bombs heroic acts of true. They saved hundreds of thousands of American lives Probably saved millions of Japanese lives, but Truman also Well because it prevented an invasion of Japan right Japan collapsed and surrendered and was all over. I mean So ideally one swift blow and game over as opposed to a prolonged Absolutely, if you know and I would bet you that most of the wars that exist today from from the prolonged wars like Vietnam or even the Iraq and Afghanistan If they had gone in and crushed the enemy and made a statement We will crush you. We will do whatever's necessary to pacify you. We will not now. I'm not advocating for those wars I think the women's taken wars, but if you go to war then that's what you should you have to win And you have to win quickly look how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died Well, I think over a million of Iraqis have died because of this prolonged Imagine if on day one they killed them. I mean, I'm not advocating for this just to be clear Imagine if the day one they would have killed a million Iraqis The war would have ended the Rockies would not one of one of the fight nobody would want to touch the Americans They would petrified and it would be over But you would everybody would say that is the most horrific act in all of human history Yeah, well a million have died more than a minute one out and then it's over over a long period of time Nobody cares nobody cares But if it didn't mean in one day everybody would kid as if time at us But surely that's the Magnitudes, I mean the magnitude of the attack and the sort of indiscriminate.  I'm not gonna defend America I'm not gonna defend America's policy in the Middle East, but the Middle East was messed up and screwed up It's well before America showed up. No, I completely agree. But has it helped? Yeah, I think it's I think life in certain countries in the Middle East is better because of American intervention But overall no America's done a disaster job. Why is it done a disaster job because it appeases everybody it? Doesn't a suit itself. It doesn't a suited value. Why is America many times? Never invasions are never never never suited itself. I give you an example. Okay, so you go into Iraq Yeah, you can't you take you up and now what would it mean to assert yourself in your work? What means assert itself is like what we asserted ourselves in Japan. You know who wrote the Japanese Constitution that they still live by? General MacArthur, right? He literally sat down if the Japanese wrote a constitution He looked at it said this is crap and he shredded it. He sat down at his desk with his assistant This is a true story and he wrote a Constitution and he said this is what you're gonna live by This is your Constitution What did the Americans do in Iraq? They brought a committee of tribal leaders You know, you know and and religious leaders and and all kind of and they wrote a Constitution It's just an unmitigated disaster what you'd expect that a group of tribalists would write as a Constitution So what do you get you get a mess in Iraq?   No and and now that is true of slavery, but it's also true of Laws, let's say that discriminate against she had to discriminate against Sunnis or discriminate against women or discriminate against Atheists is it okay to discriminate against atheists or discriminate against Christians? No, none of those things are right and even if you vote for them they're not right even if the entire country thinks they're right They're not right. This is why there is such thing as objective truth. You want a successful country? There's a formula It's called the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. It's called the American Constitution These are formulas. They're not perfect. You could rewrite them, but that's the formula That's a general formula if you rock wants to be a successful country You got to adopt the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in spirit if not in Inexactness and that is true of every Middle Eastern country to the extent that they don't do that. They will be disasters And even if people like the disaster, they don't have a right to have the disaster They don't have a right to discriminate against the individuals who reject it What about the atheists in Iraq who don't want this Constitution because it's all about religion. It's all about Sharia Hmm, okay fair enough. That's interesting, but that I'm saying is very hot. Don't have rights Individuals have rights and the only purpose of government is to protect those rights into the extent that America goes into a country The only purpose of going into that country should be should be to bring them freedom So do you think and by letting the Yorkies write their own Constitution? They didn't allow them to establish freedom.  Today or whenever What difference does that make? I mean you said time to make a difference, right? So I would do I would do I would do two things So, you know, so this is where a lot of people hate my guts. I believe with war, you know have been a war with with Islamism Jihadism, whatever you want to call it since then he's 79 Exactly 30 years ago 30 years or 40 years ago. Yeah, I can't do math anymore 40 years ago when when the American embassy was taken which is an active war and When I think the Islamist movements in its current form was really large I mean it is it was the brotherhood that goes even further to the 1920s And there's Wahhabism that goes back to the 18th century But in this one of form the Islamist movement was really formed in 1979 even the Sunnis Were inspired by the Iranian revolution. Yes, they were now to me Iran is the key country you want to Saudi Arabia the two countries that fund all the terrorism Whether they do it as government policy where they do through charities or where they do it through other ways The other countries that do it. So in my view America has to take care of business First and then withdraw from the Middle East. I mean not just from the Middle East American troops in 120 different countries, I would withdraw them from South Korea. South Korea is a rich country They can defend themselves. I would withdraw them from Japan let Japan defend itself I would just draw them from everywhere Germany as well. Certainly. Absolutely. You know who they're defending as the Russians But the Germans fight the Russians Americans shouldn't have to fight the Russians. So I Would withdraw American troops from all these countries, but before I do that This is where you know, so libertarians all agree with But I believe before that you have to take a business take your business means to regime changes in Saudi Arabia and in Iran now In Iran, it's more difficult because the regime is more entrenched So you might have to use military force to have a nuclear weapon like the development as well Another reason to change the regime there and to make clear that that to that regime the new regime that comes about that They better behave themselves.  This is the sort of American policeman and this is true If you don't if you if if if if if if these countries attack each other if you want fights with Iraq America She's out of it. If if Pakistan in India want to get at it America should stay out of it Even if it's a nuclear and it could affect well if it affects American citizens American American property If it has then America should get involved But it's but the wall of America is not to be the policeman of though See you want them to be a policeman of the world when it's convenient for you And you don't want them to be policemen of the world when it's not convenient for you That's what conservatives and everybody else. I I don't want them to be policemen of the world except in one sense They need to protect so the United States should have this the the fleets in the Arabian Sea and all around that region to protect it The the the shipping lanes so that they can get the oil and that they can they can you know trade international trade to continue that is a Crucial war for the American military to practice and it's it's a part of the individual rights of Americans to be able to trade Whoever they want They need to replace the regime in Iran and they need to replace the regime in Saudi Arabia The fact that we are allies of a king is disgusting and despicable We shouldn't have an embassy in Saudi Arabia We should have nothing to do with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and you wipe them out Wipe them out. I don't think you need to wipe them out. You see everybody thinks that this requires wiping people out All you have to do to the Saudis is go boo. I Mean, what are the Saudis have nothing they're poor country.  I mean is this day is there is no such thing as their country In that sense, but the thing wait when you attack America America America is specific people with specific property rights Whose property rights? Whose property rights were violated by all companies in Saudi Arabia? Give me the name of the person. I don't know their names. Yeah, it was the king. Okay. Kings don't have property rights Kings do not have property rights. Kings are an abomination There is no the king doesn't have property rights So if there's a land in Saudi Arabia that nobody owns and I discover oil on that who's oil in Texas If you discover oil in Texas on your land, who's oil is it? America's It's your America's I'm going Texas Anyway, if I discover oil my property in California in Puerto Rico now I live in Puerto Rico if I discover oil in my property. It's my oil If if if you have a property in Saudi Arabia, you discover oil The Saudi States oil that's communism for the guy who accused me of communism. No Capitalism is about private property if I want to invite people on to my private properties goes back to immigration It's my business. It's not the state's business who I invite to my property and if I discover oil in my property It's my property. It's none of the state's business what I do with that that is private property That's what capitalism means. So there is no such thing as American oil. There's no such thing as American jobs There's no such thing as American anything. There's individual Americans own things the job of the American State is to protect those property rights. It's protect my way to bring in as many Mexicans I want to live on my land as I want It's to protect my way to the oil that I have in the land so nobody can steal it and see it It's not their oil. It's my oil and got your house So the same thing in Saudi Arabia when American oil companies discovered oil in Saudi Arabia and it was their oil and Then the Saudis stole it from them Saudi King stole it from that's when America should have intervened and said no You can't steal our people stuff