Comparisons of VRP Optimization Algorithmic Methods for the Optimal Routing of Multiple Delivery Vehicles with Time Constraint

Transportation costs account for a large portion of business expense in any logistics firm; thus, achieving proper solutions that manage those transportation activities well and reduce such expense should be the number one priority for the business. Essentially, such logistics management involves the routing plans for company vehicles that perform delivery/pick up and also the number of vehicles utilized. This study investigated and compared the optimization performances of routing algorithms using simulated geographic data based in Chiang Rai, Thailand, emulating the post office operation which had 1 post office, 4 delivery vehicles and 2 delivery zones (2 vehicles per zone): 65 customer locations for zone A and 74 for zone B. The major objective of this particular routing problem, called Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP), was that the total delivery distance of those 4 delivery vehicles combined should be minimized; moreover, those vehicles mush finish their delivery operation within a time constraint, set at 2 hours. The optimization algorithms, employed for the routing procedures, were Large Neighborhood Search (LNS), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Differential Evolution (DE) and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), combined into 3 hybrid algorithms (LNS|PSO, LNS|DE and LNS|ACO). Those hybrid algorithms including pure ones (DE, PSO and ACO) were compared for their optimization performances; and the results showed that LNS|ACO hybrid algorithm was superior than the other two hybrid ones and also far better than pure DE, PSO and ACO algorithms at various parameter variants. Additionally, most algorithms (hybrid and pure ones) finished the delivery routing within the time constraint of 2 hours except only for the pure algorithms at minimum parameter variant.

The Port Elizabeth Electric Tramway case:1 Is the meaning ascribed to the phrase “in the production of the income” by Watermeyer AJP in the Port Elizabeth Electric Tramway case still religiously followed today?

This article analyses the meaning attributed to the phrase “in the production of the income” as used in the present section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for general expenses to be allowed as deductions against income. Read together with section 23(g), section 11(a) is commonly referred to as the “general deduction formula”. It has been said that the meaning ascribed to the phrase by Watermeyer AJP (as he was then) in his judgment in the Port Elizabeth Electric Tramway Company Ltd v CIR is “too mechanical and contrived”. Consequently, the judiciary, in applying the meaning as attributed to it by Watermeyer AJP in subsequent cases, has sometimes led to inconsistent and conflicting judgments. In fact, the application of the meaning so ascribed takes no account of the economic and other non-economic realities of doing business in the 21st century. The main objective of this article has been to re-ignite the debate surrounding Watermeyer AJP’s interpretation of the phrase, “in the production of the income”, in the Port Electric Tramway case and in so doing establish whether the narrow meaning ascribed by him to that phrase has subtly been changed and widened by the judiciary in subsequent cases. It can be concluded from an analysis of the case law discussed in this article that Watermeyer AJP’s interpretation, if strictly adhered to, can and does lead to absurd results. However, it is submitted that sanity has fi nally prevailed. The Supreme Court of Appeal in the comparatively recently decided cases of C:SARS v Mobile Telephone Networks Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Warner Lambert SA (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS, have considerably widened the ambit of expenses that may now be claimed in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act. The deduction of expenditure as was allowed in those two cases by the Supreme Court of Appeal, would appear not to have been permissible in terms of Watermayer AJP’s interpretation of the meaning of the phrase “in the production of income”. It is submitted that the economic realities =of doing business in South Africa in the 21st century are now taken into account in determining whether a business expense falls within the ambit of the phrase “incurred in the production of the income”.

Tax Liability for Wage Theft

This paper shows how, under existing tax law, illegal wage underpayment by an employer (sometimes called “wage theft”) may generate employer tax liability for unreported income or disallowed business expense deductions. Given that the tax authority needs information from the underpaid worker to prove such liability, the paper identifies two ways that a worker can transmit that information to a tax authority: becoming a tax informant, or bringing a qui tam action under a state false claims act. Finally, the paper discusses possible influences on the decision of the unpaid worker to inform on the employer to the tax authority, and considers the conditions under which a tax authority is likely to audit an employer based on such information. In so doing, the paper identifies a new approach to combating wage theft and an undiscovered implication of basic income tax law.

THE AIA'S SPECIAL BULLETIN SERIES AND ITS EARLY GUIDANCE ON TAX ISSUES RELATED TO DEPRECIATION, 1920–1929

ABSTRACT When the final state ratified the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913, levying taxes directly on individual incomes became a reality and opened up expanded taxation on businesses. For example, the supporting legislation allowed for the deduction of wear and tear on equipment as a business expense based on the service lives. Unfortunately for the tax preparer, there was no clear meaning of wear and tear and the interpretation of the of service lives in the legislation. With little or no guidance to CPA tax preparers and their clients, it was inevitable that Bureau of Internal Revenue examiners would question returns with such deductions. To help its members to understand better, the new law and the ever-increasing complexity of accounting issues related to it, the American Institute of Accountants began to publish the Special Bulletin Series in January 1920. Many of the answers present in the Bulletins between 1920 and 1929 solved accounting and tax problems in ways still used nearly a century later.