Individual Vehicle Mileage and Fuel Record Form

Youtube has some good videos on this. The guy runs a camera down the sparkplug hole before and after the Seafoam. There was no meaningful difference.Myself? I keep my cars forever and the only thing I’ve ever used is a can of Techron every now and again. BTW there are two versions of Techron; get the expensive one.-Thomas-

Yes! At least 9 missions crossed two times the Van Allen Belts safely: Apollo 8, Apollo 10, Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apolo 16 and Apollo 17. The first on in December 1968 and the last one n December 1972.Before and after these missions, all missions happened in Low Earth Oribt.The Apollo missions are controversial only between the ignoramus. For example, the ignoramus that thinks that the Van Allen belt kills instantly.Most scientists and space engineers knows how to deal with the Van Allen belts in a safe way.Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TVBad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.Moon landing conspiracy theories1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (a high-altitude nuclear test in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.There are two main Van Allen belts - the inner belt and the outer belt - and a transient third belt.[106] The inner belt is the more dangerous one, containing energetic protons. The outer one has less-dangerous low-energy electrons (Beta particles).[107][108] The Apollo spacecraft passed through the inner belt in a matter of minutes and the outer belt in about 1 1⁄2 hours.[108] The astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminum hulls of the spacecraft.[108][109] Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure.[109] Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[110]Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[111] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year[108][112] and not much more than what Space Shuttle astronauts received.[107]

For Part II you write in where you reside on Line 9 and on Line 10 the withholding rate from 0 to 30% depending on which article of the US/Trinidad tax treaty applies to you.  Then write in the type of income and the treaty article that applies to your income. The most common are Article 9 for business profits or Article 11 for personal services, but not knowing your particular circumstance I can't say if one of those is correct for you.Part III only requires your signature and the date signed.  You are attesting that the statements in Part III are true.

You can use ITR-1 to show it as Income from Other SOurcesIf you want to claim expense against this income, then you are better off showing it in ITR-2 again as Income from Other Sources. In this case dont claim too many expenses against Income from Other Sources because that usually triggers a scrutinyIf this is going to be regular, then you will need to fill ITR-3 and show this as Income from Business/Profession. The negative of this ITR is that it is quite voluminous and you will have to prepare a Balance Sheet and Profit and loss account even if your income from this source exceeds an amount as low as Rs. 1,20,000/-.

Departments of education and school districts always have to make decisions about what to include in their curriculum.  There are a lot of life skills that people need that aren't taught in school.  The question is should those skills be taught in schools?I teach high school, so I'll talk about that.  The typical high school curriculum is supposed to give students a broad-based education that prepares them to be citizens in a democracy and to be able to think critically.  For a democracy to work, we need educated, discerning citizens with the ability to make good decisions based on evidence and objective thought.  In theory, people who are well informed about history, culture, science, mathematics, etc., and are capable of critical, unbiased thinking, will have the tools to participate in a democracy and make good decisions for themselves and for society at large.  In addition to that, they should be learning how to be learners, how to do effective, basic research, and collaborate with other people.  If that happens, figuring out how to do procedural tasks in real life should not provide much of a challenge.  We can't possibly teach every necessary life skill people need, but we can help students become better at knowing how to acquire the skills they need.  Should we teach them how to change a tire when they can easily consult a book or search the internet to find step by step instructions for that?  Should we teach them how to balance a check book or teach them how to think mathematically and make sense of problems so that the simple task of balancing a check book (which requires simple arithmetic and the ability to enter numbers and words in columns and rows in obvious ways) is easy for them to figure out.  If we teach them to be good at critical thinking and have some problem solving skills they will be able to apply those overarching skills to all sorts of every day tasks that shouldn't be difficult for someone with decent cognitive ability  to figure out.  It's analogous to asking why a culinary school didn't teach its students the steps and ingredients to a specific recipe.  The school taught them about more general food preparation and food science skills so that they can figure out how to make a lot of specific recipes without much trouble.  They're also able to create their own recipes.So, do we want citizens with very specific skill sets that they need to get through day to day life or do we want citizens with critical thinking, problem solving, and other overarching cognitive skills that will allow them to easily acquire ANY simple, procedural skill they may come to need at any point in their lives?

If you use your car only for your job or business, you may deduct all of the miles driven or actual vehicle expenses. But if you also use the car for other purposes, you can only deduct the portion used for business purposes. Normal commuting from your home to your regular workplace and back is not deductible.

You can deduct more in 2019, the IRS says. The Internal Revenue Service is giving some taxpayers who use their cars for business a much-appreciated bonus: a boost of three-and-a-half cents per mile, bringing the mileage deduction to 58 cents per mile in 2019. ... The typical driver logs about 14,000 miles per year.

The IRS recently announced the 2018 \u201cstandard mileage rates\u201d. Whenever you drive for business, medical reasons, or in support of a charitable organization, you may be able to get a mileage deduction and save money on your taxes. ... 54.5 cents per mile for business miles driven, up from 53.5 cents in 2017.

The standard mileage rate deduction for the 2017 tax year was 53.5 cents per mile. ... And yes, you must \u200bitemize rather than take the standard deduction to claim this expense. Your total employee business expenses must exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income. You can claim a deduction for the balance over this amount.

If you paid for car fuel for a company car and had to reclaim mileage from your employer, HMRC has a list of Advisory Fuel Rates (AFR). ... The 45p/25p per mile tax-free mileage allowance can be used to cover things other than fuel, including running costs such as insurance and repairs.