K Wave Rider Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 1.The provider of the gold [A] sells the gold to the gold refiner . As pure gold isn’t taxed, there is no retail sales tax treatment. 2.The gold refiner transforms the gold into gold scrap, rendering it taxable. 3.The gold refiner sells the gold scrap to the gold provider [A]. The gold scrap being taxable, the gold refiner collects retail sales tax from the gold provider. 4.The gold refiner doesn’t remit retail sales tax collected from the provider [A] to Revenue Quebec (a situation of taxation realized but not submitted). 5. The gold provider [A] claims a tax refund from Revenue Quebec on the retail sales tax inputs that it had paid to the gold refiner . 6.The gold provider [A] sends the scrap gold to another refiner to transform the gold scrap into pure gold. The same cycle of transactions repeats itself, and each time a new cycle begins, it increases the size of the fraudulent gains generated by the scheme and lost to the province. What’s more, you generally find that one or several intermediaries gets added in between the provider [A] and the refiner in order to obfuscate the structure and make it more difficult for the scheme to be detected. http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/ As someone who has dealt extensively with Canadian GST, I would say that #4 above is where it makes no sense. When you receive GST/PST, you are obligated to remit it to Revenue Canada/Quebec. I do not understand why whoever was paid the GST, which in this case does not appear to be Kitco, would not think that they need to forward those payments on to the appropriate revenue agency. If Kitco paid the tax, and the other company did not remit it, how is that Kitco's fault? Which is pretty much what they said in their defense press release. Perhaps there is something more to the story. Does the refiner have some special exemption from paying collected taxes? Based on the information above, I don't get it. Number #4 makes no sense otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Wave Rider Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Nasty will have it's day at some point Of course, that day will be after the likes of XOM has gobbled up assets on the cheap SJT, PBT, HGT will all pay you over 6% to wait ...and if the market gets poleaxed and these things end up tanking as well, the yield can run to 8%, 10% or 15%....or higher When they price with a yield above 10% = SOLD TO ME ___________ (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) said it bought privately held natural gas company Phillips Resources and related company TWP Inc for $1.69 billion last week, picking up about 317,000 acres for exploration in the Marcellus shale basin. The action highlights the importance Exxon is placing on natural gas assets after spending about $30 billion last year to buy natural gas company XTO Energy, adding one of the leading developers of shale gas and a resource base of 45 trillion cubic feet of gas equivalent. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-phillips-exxon-idUSTRE75774920110608 the first one, SJT has a scary lookin' daily chart...major resistance at 900 not overcome, now back below 200 day, with back kiss complete.... A solid close over $25 might change the prognosis, but right now, that chart looks FUGLY The other two look a bit stronger relatively speaking at this point, but one good solid down week could flip them as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanta Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Anyone understand Armstrong's prediction here? He says June 13/14 will be a top in gold and bottom in the dollar. However, in his zigzag picture on Page 9, he puts those dates at the bottom of a zig, not at the top of a zag. So does that mean he expects a bottom in the stock market at that time? Or was he just careless in where he typed "June 13/14?" Or what? In order for that date to be a YTD top in the Dow, the Dow would have to rise 925 points in a day or 2, which is rather unlikely. But then his 2007 top was early by 4 or 5 months, if I remember correctly, so whatever his prediction is here, it could end up waiting until October to occur, if it is correct at all. Or the prediction date could be a just a little late and his top in the Dow and gold already happened. Read this 2009 Article, where he explains in detail the 2007 top in the Economic Confidence model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 1.The provider of the gold [A] sells the gold to the gold refiner . As pure gold isn’t taxed, there is no retail sales tax treatment. 2.The gold refiner transforms the gold into gold scrap, rendering it taxable. 3.The gold refiner sells the gold scrap to the gold provider [A]. The gold scrap being taxable, the gold refiner collects retail sales tax from the gold provider. 4.The gold refiner doesn’t remit retail sales tax collected from the provider [A] to Revenue Quebec (a situation of taxation realized but not submitted). 5. The gold provider [A] claims a tax refund from Revenue Quebec on the retail sales tax inputs that it had paid to the gold refiner . 6.The gold provider [A] sends the scrap gold to another refiner to transform the gold scrap into pure gold. The same cycle of transactions repeats itself, and each time a new cycle begins, it increases the size of the fraudulent gains generated by the scheme and lost to the province. What’s more, you generally find that one or several intermediaries gets added in between the provider [A] and the refiner in order to obfuscate the structure and make it more difficult for the scheme to be detected. http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/ Thanks for that. I just looked at the Kitco site and see that they appear to offer a service that allows investors to hold gold in their IRA accounts (and comparable accounts in Canada). I assume these are the source of complications to "unallocated gold" that is managed by Kitco? What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 If Kitco paid the tax, and the other company did not remit it, how is that Kitco's fault? Which is pretty much what they said in their defense press release. The charge seems to involve sham transactions - if Kitco was a party to those, it might indict them. Just thinking out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Wave Rider Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The charge seems to involve sham transactions - if Kitco was a party to those, it might indict them. Just thinking out loud. IF Kitco paid the tax to a related party, and that related party did not forward the taxes, I could see fraud. But if Kitco paid the tax as they were legally required to do, and the 3rd party didn't pay it, I don't see how Kitco is at fault. In other words, If Kitco received no benefit from the tax scheme, and it appears from what has been released so far, that they did not, as they actually paid the tax, then I don't see how they are liable for taxes that they paid in good faith according to the law. There's probably more to the story that hasn't been made public yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 “ Potential For Market Crash Grows ” Unable to get this to open over at the WSE page.........Darryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharmaeye Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 IF Kitco paid the tax to a related party, and that related party did not forward the taxes, I could see fraud. But if Kitco paid the tax as they were legally required to do, and the 3rd party didn't pay it, I don't see how Kitco is at fault. In other words, If Kitco received no benefit from the tax scheme, and it appears from what has been released so far, that they did not, as they actually paid the tax, then I don't see how they are liable for taxes that they paid in good faith according to the law. There's probably more to the story that hasn't been made public yet. What it also interesting is that different provinces treat PM different with regard to taxes and that effects federal taxes. Here in Canada we have taxes on taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwd Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Rich-bitch Leona Helmsley said it best.... "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." I think she had it right, but she couldn't keep her mouth shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwd Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The charge seems to involve sham transactions - if Kitco was a party to those, it might indict them. Just thinking out loud. That is what I read, Sham transactions. The GATA guys have been saying that for years that unallocated metal storage is fractional banking, and watch out when too many people wanted their metal at the same time. The head analysist for Kitco, Jon Nalder has been bearish and wrong for ten years, but that nust reflect the views of the owner. Maybe he has sold some metals unhedged and he had to come up with more cash to cover his short position, and that is why he had to resort to something on the margin. I am sure the Quebec authorities don't want to start a run on unallocated storage businesses, but I sure would not want any thing to do with Kitco now, although I have used their home page as my home page for years. See below on what the Morque did a few years back. Reuters) - Morgan Stanley (MS.N) will pay $4.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with brokerage clients who bought precious metals and paid storage fees, according to a court filing. The proposed settlement, which must be approved by the federal court in Manhattan, includes a cash component of $1.5 million and economic and remedial benefits valued at about $2.9 million, according to a court filing on Monday. The suit, filed in August 2005, alleged that Morgan Stanley told clients it was selling them precious metals that they would own in full and that the company would store. But Morgan Stanley either made no investment specifically on behalf of those clients, or it made entirely different investments of lesser value and security, according to the complaint. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/12/idUSN1228014520070612 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHanky Posted June 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 $109,500 based on land smash Las Vegas Lands sells for 15 percent of 2007 price What do you get for $730,000? Linkage to that unit or similar? TIA This Is a unit in a different building kind of similar..... http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/322-Karen-Ave-Unit-2106_Las-Vegas_NV_89109_M26323-82616 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Joe Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 This Is a unit in a different building kind of similar..... http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/322-Karen-Ave-Unit-2106_Las-Vegas_NV_89109_M26323-82616 Some view. Any idea what the monthly condo fee or HOA or whatever the f**k they call it in Vegas is? And how about insurance? Signed, Curious Douche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHanky Posted June 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Some view. Any idea what the monthly condo fee or HOA or whatever the f**k they call it in Vegas is? And how about insurance? Signed, Curious Douche Anywhere from $400 to $1200 a month.The one I am looking at is about $475.....Includes water,sewer,trash,insurance,partial electric (taxes are between 2k and 3k a year from what I have seen) and these "extras"..... Outdoor Pool & Jacuzzi surrounded by lush, landscaping, cabanas and out door fireplace Concierge Valet Parking Spa/Fitness Center Indoor Racquetball Billiards Room Putting Green Private Screening Room State-Of-The-Art Security including on-site video monitoring and 24-hour guard-gated entrance Gated pet-friendly dog run area Dry Cleaning & Laundry Service Business Center with conference space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 While we're talking real estate west of the Rockies, I'm buying our landlady's house next week. The 5-year plan is to live here for the next 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Joe Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 While we're talking real estate west of the Rockies, I'm buying our landlady's house next week. The 5-year plan is to live here for the next 40 years. ...and east of the Rockies, my GF is closing on her Denver house in 2 weeks Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.