Temasek selling Merrill Lynch at a loss
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Since when stock split and stock transfer need approval from IRAS?I wonder if OoOo is busy googling for the answer now.
Gazelle substantiate your claim.
So I guess you are the only one here who have fallen into this little trick of selective reading huh? I
Have you ever wonder why he only highlight these few words "how can you justify to IRAS to split"
SPLIT WHAT? SPLIT ARSE?
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year? -
Originally posted by Uncertain:
Ok.. O o O o apparently ur selective reading disorder has occurred again.This is your question right:
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
So my ans is:
U CLAIM IRAS NEEDS REASONS FOR STOCK SPLITS... GIVE ME EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE UR POINT.
Sorry hor, I won't stand by my com every sec for ur reply ok, I got things to do... so dun quote people "Coward" when they dun bother to pay attention to ur nonsense.
Uncertain,
1) After all that talk about FRS 10.8 I am surprise that you didnt even use that to justify your arguement because isnt that the first TOOL you pull out to impress us?
2) So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
As you can see, after realising that he has no FACTS to support what is said, he is now using what I call selective reading technique to create something out of nothing. Isnt it obvious that my statement about is talking about splitting 50% of INCOME and not splitting shares.
And guess what, he is now using the word STOCK, as if the Sole Proprietor company has transform to be a public listed company....Kekeke..
If you are color blind and you cant read text written in black, then I will forgive you for sprouting so much nonsense. However if you are doing this hoping that we are blind, then I must say that you are really pathatic.
-
First of all, there is no need to justify any split of 50% to IRAS.
If there is no need to justify, then what crap are you talking about?
Let me explain it simpler for your feeble mind.
If you don't need approval from your father to go out late.
What does this statement mean?
You are going out late, aren't you going to ask your father for approval?
A redundant question, just like your existence.
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Uncertain,
1) After all that talk about FRS 10.8 I am surprise that you didnt even use that to justify your arguement because isnt that the first TOOL you pull out from to impress us?
2) So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
As you can see, after realising that he has no FACTS to support what is said, he is now using what I call selective reading technique to create something out of nothing. Isnt it obvious that my statement about is talking about splitting 50% of INCOME and not splitting shares.
And guess what, he is now using the word STOCK, as if the Sole Proprietor company has transform to be a public listed company....Kekeke..
If you are color blind and you cant read text written in black, then I will forgive you for sprouting so much nonsense. However if you are doing this hoping that we are blind, then I must say that you are really pathatic.
So u like to pick on small mistake like stock split, then can u tell me what is SP company's income hehe... Sole Proprietorship is sole proprietorship, company is company. Company has stocks but sole proprietorship dun, so I use stock split is kinda reasonable.
Sadly, I am not colour-blinded. I think u are cos u still refused to read my earlier post which I am too lazy to paste for u. Apparently, whatever u insulted me like "u dun jump into conclusion", "empty vessel" and "colour-blind" only apply to u.
To even bother to talk about FRS 10.8 (which u claim i use to impress), U should first convince me why IRAS need justification for ur so-called dun know stock or company income split. (I said this 3 times liao)
-
Originally posted by Uncertain:
So u like to pick on small mistake like stock split, then can u tell me what is SP company's income hehe... Sole Proprietorship is sole proprietorship, company is company. Company has stocks but sole proprietorship dun, so I use stock split is kinda reasonable.
Sadly, I am not colour-blinded. I think u are cos u still refused to read my earlier post which I am too lazy to paste for u. Apparently, whatever u insulted me like "u dun jump into conclusion", "empty vessel" and "colour-blind" only apply to u.
To even bother to talk about FRS 10.8 (which u claim i use to impress), U should first convince me why IRAS need justification for ur so-called dun know stock or company income split. (I said this 3 times liao)
He is the type that would nitpick and miss the gist of the entire issue.
Missing the forest for the trees.
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
So I guess you are the only one here who have fallen into this little trick of selective reading huh? I
Have you ever wonder why he only highlight these few words "how can you justify to IRAS to split"
SPLIT WHAT? SPLIT ARSE?
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?I highlight this because u got this SRD (Selective Reading Disorder). So a bolded red font may bring ur eyes to this sentence.
and ur "SPLIT WHAT? SPLIT ARSE?" is very funny.
Because u dun even know what u are writing. Time to take medicine O o O o
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
First of all, there is no need to justify any split of 50% to IRAS.
If there is no need to justify, then what crap are you talking about?
Maurizio,I know you are very desperate to help save the face of UNCERTAIN, however that doesnt give you to right to sprout further nonsence in this forum for self interest.
As I have mentioned a Sole Proprietor Company is taxed though the owner personal income tax filing hence, it will be classified as personal income tax not company income tax.
So what you claim is that by the end of the FY07, the only could switch the SP company over to a partnership and transfer 50% of your income from FY07 to the new partnership company shareholder and save on tax.
That to me is rubbish!!
-
I have no doubt that he will keep on going about the terminology of my question.
Which I have many times told him is not correct, sole proprietorship company is wrong. Maybe he can explain if it means a sole proprietorship or a company?
Told him a million times that it was meant to be wholly owned company, but still her persist in relying on wrong information to justify his logic.
What more can I say.
-
Well, M13, even if what you said is logical and true, to Gazelle, it is still total rubbish.
He's already proven to be illogical by MostWanted.
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Maurizio,I know you are very desperate to help save the face of UNCERTAIN, however that doesnt give you to right to sprout further nonsence in this forum for self interest.
As I have mentioned a Sole Proprietor Company is taxed though the owner personal income tax filing hence, it will be classified as personal income tax not company income tax.
So what you claim is that by the end of the FY07, the only could switch the SP company over to a partnership and transfer 50% of your income from FY07 to the new partnership company shareholder and save on tax.
That to me is rubbish!!
Sole Proprietor Company?Does this term exist in IRAS?
Already told you it is wrong, still you refuse to accept the wrong terminology and persist in being stupid.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Well, M13, even if what you said is logical and true, to Gazelle, it is still total rubbish.
He's already proven to be illogical by MostWanted.
Already told him the terminology is wrong, gave him an updated scenario, but he still insist on using a wrong scenario to justify his logic.If I have a son like that, I think I go hang myself, serious.
-
Updated question:
The general question (principle) was, can a husband give his wife half his company (assuming future profits is $80,000) so that he can reduce his marginal tax rate of 5.375% to marginal tax rate of 2.25% for their future tax assessment?
I admitted that the scenario was wrong, this is the updated scenario.
Only one simple question, which you OoOo aka Gazelle avoided and avoided.
Is this possible for a taxpayer to reduce his tax liability?
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Maurizio,I know you are very desperate to help save the face of UNCERTAIN, however that doesnt give you to right to sprout further nonsence in this forum for self interest.
As I have mentioned a Sole Proprietor Company is taxed though the owner personal income tax filing hence, it will be classified as personal income tax not company income tax.
So what you claim is that by the end of the FY07, the only could switch the SP company over to a partnership and transfer 50% of your income from FY07 to the new partnership company shareholder and save on tax.
That to me is rubbish!!
haha save my face?Sole Proprietor Company. Hmm... new form of business entity approved by Singapore Law? So O o O o, this one got stock a not? Why i didn't know about Sole Proprietor Company in my business law module?
-
Originally posted by Uncertain:
I highlight this because u got this SRD (Selective Reading Disorder). So a bolded red font may bring ur eyes to this sentence.
and ur "SPLIT WHAT? SPLIT ARSE?" is very funny.
Because u dun even know what u are writing. Time to take medicine O o O o
Uncertain,
You tell me, which part of this statement talk about splitting share or splitting stocks?
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's INCOME (or personal INCOME since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
You are one bloody pathatic fool.
-
Originally posted by Uncertain:
haha save my face?Sole Proprietor Company. Hmm... new form of business entity approved by Singapore Law? So O o O o, this one got stock a not? Why i didn't know about Sole Proprietor Company in my business law module?
He don't seem to understand, when I told him that I made some error with the terminology and persist in using it to claim he is smart.I have no doubt that he will insist on ranting further like a teenager.
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Uncertain,
You tell me, which part of this statement talk about splitting share or splitting stocks?
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's INCOME (or personal INCOME since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
You are one bloody pathatic fool.
Ermmm......Do you know what is the company year end?
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Uncertain,
You tell me, which part of this statement talk about splitting share or splitting stocks?
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's INCOME (or personal INCOME since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
You are one bloody pathatic fool.
the holy word: SP Company
-
Originally posted by Uncertain:
the holy word: SP Company
Hahaha.......he still persist in his stupidity.OMG!!!!
I thought I already told him that I made an error with the terms.
Man!!!
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
He don't seem to understand, when I told him that I made some error with the terminology and persist in using it to claim he is smart.I have no doubt that he will insist on ranting further like a teenager.
O o O o is really a tough nut to crack. People know what is inferiority and making a fool of oneself but O o O o is an exception here. -
Originally posted by Uncertain:
Ok.. O o O o apparently ur selective reading disorder has occurred again.This is your question right:
So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
So my ans is:
U CLAIM IRAS NEEDS REASONS FOR STOCK SPLITS... GIVE ME EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE UR POINT.
Sorry hor, I won't stand by my com every sec for ur reply ok, I got things to do... so dun quote people "Coward" when they dun bother to pay attention to ur nonsense.
Uncertain,
1) After all that talk about FRS 10.8 I am surprise that you didnt even use that to justify your arguement because isnt that the first TOOL you pull out to impress us?
2) So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
As you can see, after realising that he has no FACTS to support what is said, he is now using what I call selective reading technique to create something out of nothing. Isnt it obvious that my statement about is talking about splitting 50% of INCOME and not splitting shares.
And guess what, he is now using the word STOCK, as if the Sole Proprietor company has transform to be a public listed company....Kekeke..
If you are color blind and you cant read text written in black, then I will forgive you for sprouting so much nonsense. However if you are doing this hoping that we are blind, then I must say that you are really pathatic.
TELL ME WHICH PART OF MY STATEMENT TALK ABOUT STOCK OR SHARE SPLIT?
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Uncertain,
1) After all that talk about FRS 10.8 I am surprise that you didnt even use that to justify your arguement because isnt that the first TOOL you pull out to impress us?
2) So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
As you can see, after realising that he has no FACTS to support what is said, he is now using what I call selective reading technique to create something out of nothing. Isnt it obvious that my statement about is talking about splitting 50% of INCOME and not splitting shares.
And guess what, he is now using the word STOCK, as if the Sole Proprietor company has transform to be a public listed company....Kekeke..
If you are color blind and you cant read text written in black, then I will forgive you for sprouting so much nonsense. However if you are doing this hoping that we are blind, then I must say that you are really pathatic.
TELL ME WHICH PART OF MY STATEMENT TALK ABOUT STOCK OR SHARE SPLIT?
A... got read my latest post a not.For ur benefit, the holy word is "SP Company"
*can't help but to laugh again*
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Uncertain,
1) After all that talk about FRS 10.8 I am surprise that you didnt even use that to justify your arguement because isnt that the first TOOL you pull out to impress us?
2) So now my question to you is, how can you justify to IRAS to split 50% of the SP company's income (or Personal income since its a SP company) with someone who never existed in the company during that last financial year?
As you can see, after realising that he has no FACTS to support what is said, he is now using what I call selective reading technique to create something out of nothing. Isnt it obvious that my statement about is talking about splitting 50% of INCOME and not splitting shares.
And guess what, he is now using the word STOCK, as if the Sole Proprietor company has transform to be a public listed company....Kekeke..
If you are color blind and you cant read text written in black, then I will forgive you for sprouting so much nonsense. However if you are doing this hoping that we are blind, then I must say that you are really pathatic.
TELL ME WHICH PART OF MY STATEMENT TALK ABOUT STOCK OR SHARE SPLIT?
Can you dump out the scenario, it is wrong.Use the updated one.
Already tell you it's wrong and still you used it.
The general question (principle) was, can a husband give his wife half his company (assuming future profits is $80,000) so that he can reduce his marginal tax rate of 5.375% to marginal tax rate of 2.25% for his future tax assessment?
-
Uncertain,
In case you are uncertain about what you wrote?
Notice the contrasting difference between they way you talk now and before?
Originally posted by Uncertain:O o O o,
U sure a not, there is something called post balance sheet event (FRS 10.8).
If u don't know what is FRS, let me tell u. This is called the financial reporting standard of the Republic of Singapore.
FRS 10.8
a) Those that provide evidence of conditions that existed at the balance sheet date (adjusting events).
An entity shall adjust the amounts recognised in its financial statements to reflect adjusting events after the balance sheet date.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't try to say balance sheet is only for "Company" and not "sole proprietorship or LLP". Because FRS is used to determine how much tax should IRAS draw from a self-employed.
So long as the partnership's intent takes effect before the financial year 2007, the amount of taxable income will still be adjusted. So what u have try to argue has fallen prey to this FRS rule.
-
Originally posted by Uncertain:
A... got read my latest post a not.For ur benefit, the holy word is "SP Company"
*can't help but to laugh again*
I really don't know what to say.You learn something from your teacher, the next day teacher tells you he was wrong with some equation, but still this student persist in using that same equation to tell the teacher that he is wrong.
Really sad case.
-
Originally posted by Uncertain:
A... got read my latest post a not.For ur benefit, the holy word is "SP Company"
*can't help but to laugh again*
Uncertain,when someone has to start checking for my typo, grammar and spelling mistake to win an arguement, that is a sign that you have no more FUCKS to support your claim.
Sorry, I mean FACTS