ACCforum: claiming a lum sum payout for weekly compensation whilst owning a company but not earning wages - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

claiming a lum sum payout for weekly compensation whilst owning a company but not earning wages

#1 User is offline   arty 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 15-February 10

Posted 09 July 2018 - 02:49 PM

Is one allowed to claim and get paid for backdated weekly comp for a period of incapacitation which included a period that one owned a company but not earning wages
what do you reckon the chances of winning would be
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 July 2018 - 11:07 AM

View Postarty, on 09 July 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

Is one allowed to claim and get paid for backdated weekly comp for a period of incapacitation which included a period that one owned a company but not earning wages
what do you reckon the chances of winning would be


The ACC scheme is to compensate the loss of earnings so the question is not about wages but about earnings.
Wages with PAYE is only one mechanism by which you provide evidence of earnings.The majority of owner operators for example don't pay themselves wages but rather arrange for their accountant to determine the income of the company and then deduct expenditure which then leaves the level of profit. Of course the company needs money to survive or you might need to invest in further equipment so it may be necessary to leave money in the company account for the safe operations of the company or planned expansion. The balance is available to be paid out as earnings. Indeed it is quite possible that a person may have taken drawings out through the year but this in itself does not necessarily mean earnings as someone might have been taking out money from a company that has not generated much income and that the drawings have come out of invested funds. But if it is agreeable with the investor, even if it is just yourself, you might want to treat these drawings as earnings.
However at the end of the day funds are drawn out from the company that are being treated as earnings and then from that money personal taxes paid. For myself these types of things were always worked out by an accountant.
If there has been an accident within a tax year you might need an accountant to work out what is reasonable earnings given the circumstances.
Some people have tried to do for the ACC by artificially creating earnings by first lonely money to the company and then arbitrarily deciding how much to pay themselves at a rate far higher than they otherwise would have been capable of earning or what would be normal for the particular work tasks. Doing that would be insurance fraud. So you would need to work out what is reasonable and best sorted out by professionals who know how to work out these things. ACC are not decision makers on how much your earnings were but only may question the earnings if they are unreasonable and as such it is none of their dam business unless you are being dishonest.

If you find yourself being challenged by ACC from the get go or the ACC not providing relevant information in order that you determine a fair and reasonable portion of earnings from the company then you need to be writing to the ACC asking for the relevant information under the official information act and if they refused to tell you or mislead you in any way or form it would be appropriate to prosecute the individual you are dealing with for ACC fraud. In as much as they would be producing documents for your pecuniary disadvantage and the pecuniary advantage of the ACC.

At the moment I'm going much through much the same situation after being injured and unable to earn followed by surgery and then restarting my original business while still partially injured which is meant that during the setting up phase of the business which includes all manner of mechanisms and devices to assist me with my disabilities there has not been a lot of opportunity to generate income despite the fact that I have been working. If for example someone was investing in me and my company and was to insist that I pay myself from the start a fair and reasonable wage we have to ask ourselves how is this different from my circumstances whereby one would normally rely upon earnings from the company income alone.
If you look at this on the flipside when someone is injured and cannot work but still only company in the company is not generating any income because you are not working on income generating work but you proceeded to work On various devices and mechanisms to assist you compensate for your injury so as you can take on outside work and generate company earnings from which your wages become then look at this scenario through the ACC eyes they would prosecute for fraud claiming that you were working and not deserving of earnings compensation. So using the same line of reasoning that the ACC use for prosecuting for fraud you should be applying to your current situation to justify paying myself from the companies reserves at a reasonable rate just as if you were in that situation.

-4

#3 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 10 July 2018 - 01:05 PM

View Postarty, on 09 July 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

Is one allowed to claim and get paid for backdated weekly comp for a period of incapacitation which included a period that one owned a company but not earning wages
what do you reckon the chances of winning would be


Hi Arty - sorry I am not sure what the current situation is with regards to *backdated* weekly compensation.

I do know some members have achieved this with their certification but others have not.

I understood it was a discretionary type issue unfortunately ie depends on casemanager on the day etc I am also aware some doctors will refuse to issue these backdated certificates too for their own reasons it seems :unsure:

I do know that I have had questions concerning this issue but I rarely post new threads on different topics nowadays etc However one thing which I did have in the back of my mind related to when beneficiaries from WINZ return to ACC there must be a backdating process involved there IMHO....

I see Alan has answered you too, and there may be still some other members who have the expertise and experience to answer your question as well in regards to company ownership issues etc One thing which I was thinking about was really about the relevant ACC Levies being paid from the Company for you personally .. but bottomline is that I am not sure how this might apply in your circumstances etc :unsure:
1

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1699
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 July 2018 - 02:00 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

The ACC scheme is to compensate the loss of earnings so the question is not about wages but about earnings.
Wages with PAYE is only one mechanism by which you provide evidence of earnings.The majority of owner operators for example don't pay themselves wages but rather arrange for their accountant to determine the income of the company and then deduct expenditure which then leaves the level of profit. Of course the company needs money to survive or you might need to invest in further equipment so it may be necessary to leave money in the company account for the safe operations of the company or planned expansion. The balance is available to be paid out as earnings. Indeed it is quite possible that a person may have taken drawings out through the year but this in itself does not necessarily mean earnings as someone might have been taking out money from a company that has not generated much income and that the drawings have come out of invested funds. But if it is agreeable with the investor, even if it is just yourself, you might want to treat these drawings as earnings.
However at the end of the day funds are drawn out from the company that are being treated as earnings and then from that money personal taxes paid. For myself these types of things were always worked out by an accountant.




Following this information would more than likely end up with the TAX MAN. This is what is called tax evasion and there is a number of accountants being investigated for tax evasion. Judith Collins is a Tax Lawyer before her present position and she would confirm that this is correct.
1

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 July 2018 - 02:06 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 10 July 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

Following this information would more than likely end up with the TAX MAN. This is what is called tax evasion and there is a number of accountants being investigated for tax evasion. Judith Collins is a Tax Lawyer before her present position and she would confirm that this is correct.


tax evasion???What on earth are you talking about?

0

#6 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 10 July 2018 - 02:55 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 10 July 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

Following this information would more than likely end up with the TAX MAN. This is what is called tax evasion and there is a number of accountants being investigated for tax evasion. Judith Collins is a Tax Lawyer before her present position and she would confirm that this is correct.


I agree doppel :)

I have also seen a few wee signals in various MSM media reports that some of these issues are being scrutinised more closely ... and there has always been advocates exposing the huge differences between penalties for tax fraud versus benefit fraud circumstances so I think there is a bit more caselaw coming through too :unsure:

....

<<< snipped as transferred to another thread >>>

This post has been edited by anonymousey: 13 July 2018 - 07:58 PM

1

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1699
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 July 2018 - 05:48 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 02:06 PM, said:

tax evasion???What on earth are you talking about?


Go to the data base on court decision and look up tax evasions or just do a search on the web. You will get the answer from there .
1

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1699
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 July 2018 - 05:49 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 02:06 PM, said:

tax evasion???What on earth are you talking about?


Go to the data base on court decision and look up tax evasions or just do a search on the web. You will get the answer from there .
1

#9 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1650
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 10 July 2018 - 06:54 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

The ACC scheme is to compensate the loss of earnings so the question is not about wages but about earnings.
Wages with PAYE is only one mechanism by which you provide evidence of earnings.The majority of owner operators for example don't pay themselves wages but rather arrange for their accountant to determine the income of the company and then deduct expenditure which then leaves the level of profit. Of course the company needs money to survive or you might need to invest in further equipment so it may be necessary to leave money in the company account for the safe operations of the company or planned expansion. The balance is available to be paid out as earnings. Indeed it is quite possible that a person may have taken drawings out through the year but this in itself does not necessarily mean earnings as someone might have been taking out money from a company that has not generated much income and that the drawings have come out of invested funds. But if it is agreeable with the investor, even if it is just yourself, you might want to treat these drawings as earnings.
However at the end of the day funds are drawn out from the company that are being treated as earnings and then from that money personal taxes paid. For myself these types of things were always worked out by an accountant.
If there has been an accident within a tax year you might need an accountant to work out what is reasonable earnings given the circumstances.
Some people have tried to do for the ACC by artificially creating earnings by first lonely money to the company and then arbitrarily deciding how much to pay themselves at a rate far higher than they otherwise would have been capable of earning or what would be normal for the particular work tasks. Doing that would be insurance fraud. So you would need to work out what is reasonable and best sorted out by professionals who know how to work out these things. ACC are not decision makers on how much your earnings were but only may question the earnings if they are unreasonable and as such it is none of their dam business unless you are being dishonest.

If you find yourself being challenged by ACC from the get go or the ACC not providing relevant information in order that you determine a fair and reasonable portion of earnings from the company then you need to be writing to the ACC asking for the relevant information under the official information act and if they refused to tell you or mislead you in any way or form it would be appropriate to prosecute the individual you are dealing with for ACC fraud. In as much as they would be producing documents for your pecuniary disadvantage and the pecuniary advantage of the ACC.

At the moment I'm going much through much the same situation after being injured and unable to earn followed by surgery and then restarting my original business while still partially injured which is meant that during the setting up phase of the business which includes all manner of mechanisms and devices to assist me with my disabilities there has not been a lot of opportunity to generate income despite the fact that I have been working. If for example someone was investing in me and my company and was to insist that I pay myself from the start a fair and reasonable wage we have to ask ourselves how is this different from my circumstances whereby one would normally rely upon earnings from the company income alone.
If you look at this on the flipside when someone is injured and cannot work but still only company in the company is not generating any income because you are not working on income generating work but you proceeded to work On various devices and mechanisms to assist you compensate for your injury so as you can take on outside work and generate company earnings from which your wages become then look at this scenario through the ACC eyes they would prosecute for fraud claiming that you were working and not deserving of earnings compensation. So using the same line of reasoning that the ACC use for prosecuting for fraud you should be applying to your current situation to justify paying myself from the companies reserves at a reasonable rate just as if you were in that situation.



 Alan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 02:06 PM, said:

tax evasion???What on earth are you talking about?

You any idea of how companies capital assets as to bookwork accounting is actually carried out via cash introductions from the owners directors shareholders banks loans cash inputs or from anywhere / anyone at all thomas.
You don’t just leave money aside as you state and lessen your taxation obligations.
Not the wonder anymore why your companies failed and you went bankrupt and then had no meaningful accounts to present to show you were not a fraudster.
Your a complete fuk wit.
0

#10 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 10 July 2018 - 08:03 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

.... If you look at this on the flipside when someone is injured and cannot work but still only company in the company is not generating any income because you are not working on income generating work but you proceeded to work On various devices and mechanisms to assist you compensate for your injury so as you can take on outside work and generate company earnings from which your wages become then look at this scenario through the ACC eyes they would prosecute for fraud claiming that you were working and not deserving of earnings compensation. ...


This is extremely misleading IMHO ...

For example, I do know that ACC and other agencies will help fund devices & mechanisms alongside various workplace modifications ... therefore if a person is needing such assistance then there are choices here. All claimants can let ACC and their medics know of their *need* for any device &or apply for help within regular processes etc Funding decisions will then be made by the appropriate authority Alan. I am not sure though of any auditing issues on this pathway as I would expect if a claimant gets $ABC entitlement for a specific purchase, then there would likely be an implicit expectation that it is used for the purpose sought ie device is not sold or chucked away etc

If the claimant is now generating company earnings from outside work, and wages are included here Alan, then both ACC & WINZ have a range of legislated processes available here too that relate to earnings compensation ...

IMHO if there is a fraud prosecution that has been started due to the situation you described above, then it should be quickly resolved by the claimant clearly demonstrating all ACC & IRD responsibilities have been properly met; and of course abatements will apply too Alan ...

However you may need to correct your convoluted sentences because some of it is not making sense Alan ie a problem separate to typos etc

 Alan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

.... So using the same line of reasoning that the ACC use for prosecuting for fraud you should be applying to your current situation to justify paying myself from the companies reserves at a reasonable rate just as if you were in that situation.


IMHO this is a bit woolly however I would agree that if a person is working in their own company, then there is an expectation that this activity will be remunerated lawfully &or taxes paid too.

I think what you might be trying to discuss is if a person is essentially undertaking repairs & maintenance on their own company assets Alan. This is of course different to significant repairs & maintenance on supplied devices Alan. If this is a profit making project then I am not sure how long ACC or indeed any Agency would stand back if there is never any actual profit generated etc This is probably where the Cash Forecasts and other tools for company projections need to be really clear IMHO.

IMHO if there is a device which has been supplied to assist a person work then any problems therein should be recorded & tasked back to ACC or manufactuer etc Devices can also be replaced under warranty here too...

Certainly it is my POV that if a company is not profitable Alan ... then there should not be unlimited investments into such a business by the taxpayer. TBH I would not care if the owner is injured or a pokie-gambler or a hotair balloon maker because in this event as I would expect to see some interventions at different stages if required etc I would also have quite strong feelings about repeat failures and bankruptcy issues too Alan ... so yep I would support far greater controls over incompetent directors and business owners with any such history ie if they specifically seek funding from others then perhaps greater scrutiny of their books &or guarantors or secured loans over personal assets etc Of course this would not apply if a business wannabee saves up their own money or sells their own assets or borrows from family or wins the lotto and loses everything ie they should have appropriate business insurance + they will have not harmed others with any mismanagement or unforeseen circumstances etc

IMHO part of your difficulty is that you were working away and up to all sorts of secret squirrel activity without keeping your doctor properly informed as well as trying to keep ACC in the dark etc It is much like the situation you are in currently perhaps? You claim to be working on your own businesses and looking for clients to generate wages therefore your WINZ casemanager should always be part of this loop Alan. This is because you take the $$ from the taxpayer and its that simple IMHO. If you became a kept man and lived upon your partners earnings so might have a bit more flexibility to dabble in any device design hobbies Alan ... but again your doctor should be informed of these projects if there is ny risk of reinjury IMHO ...

IMHO you should be really really clear if you are actually within the *setting up phase of the business which includes all manner of mechanisms and devices to assist me with my disabilities* Alan ...OR if you are doing something else etc

In some past dialogues ... you spoke of completely different activities in regards to devices ... plus oft it was clear that these devices were not for your own personal use Alan ...

So what devices are you now claiming that you now need ??
0

#11 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2354
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 10 July 2018 - 08:04 PM

 Hemi, on 10 July 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

You any idea of how companies capital assets as to bookwork accounting is actually carried out via cash introductions from the owners directors shareholders banks loans cash inputs or from anywhere / anyone at all thomas.
You don’t just leave money aside as you state and lessen your taxation obligations.
Not the wonder anymore why your companies failed and you went bankrupt and then had no meaningful accounts to present to show you were not a fraudster.
Your a complete fuk wit.


I agree Hemi :)
1

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2018 - 12:06 PM

David Butler & antimousey as neither of you know anything about the nature of capitalism, company operations running as a separate entity from the individual despite the fact that the company may be owned by a single individual it follows that there is no possible expectation that you could comment yet you do, why would you dip your or in the what about something you know nothing?
Doppelgänger I asked you a question so as to assist you look invalid at yourself to discover the nature of your error. Your error is further magnified by your suggestion to look at the wrong direction. Try ask the question I have asked honestly and just see what the outcome is when you start to think about how to answer that question yourself.

0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM

 arty, on 09 July 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

Is one allowed to claim and get paid for backdated weekly comp for a period of incapacitation which included a period that one owned a company but not earning wages
what do you reckon the chances of winning would be


The simple answer is yes.The problematic situation is the ACC will usually have no knowledge as to how to connect the dots given the fact that they have been career bureaucrats fill with jealousy and will undoubtedly make a knee-jerk reaction based on the tall poppy principles or crab in the bucket principles and have it in their mind from their Marxist training to drag you down and crush you under them on the basis that you cannot be superior to them despite the fact that you have just been a person having the courage to strike out and build something from nothing based on sweat equity ingenuity and self-sacrifice to build something that previously did not exist. There mindset will be totally focused on their pie cutting mentality rather than productive efforts designs to generate earnings of which civilisations are built.

If we look at section 6 we will see that employment means engaging in work for the purposes of earnings. We are insured therefore to have cover a capacity to earn.
If we look at earning wages you are dealing with two separate things, earning and wages. It is necessary to break down the meaning of both words to properly understand how those words fits within the ACC scheme of things. Wages imply a regular or routine payment. For convenience the IRD tax earners of wages as they are earned. However if we look at earnings in the broader context earnings does not even need to be money. For example earnings could be lots and lots of fringe benefits as well as money or fringe benefits of their own. If example and ACC claimant were getting 80% of their previous earnings as earnings compensation and thought that they could engage and work task activities for the purposes of gaining fringe benefits instead of wages or money and not inform the ACC of this they would be depriving ACC of the value of those fringe benefits to enable the ACC to carry out an abatement of earnings calculation of which the ACC would most certainly do for the purposes of offsetting what would otherwise be double dipping. Do not declare this to the ACC would be an act of fraud. Having that in mind we now must look out the nature of earnings prior to being injured and the value of those earnings is what is good for the goose is good for the gander, in other words the rules are exactly the same regarding the measurement of earnings that are not wages. If you feel you have not grasped this principle precisely please expand upon this by asking the ACC prior to asking for earnings compensation in relation to your above question.


Wages is a function of reward from a third party such as a company. If you are the sole owner of the company and receive wages from that company that is only one form of earnings. So if you have not been paying yourself wages there is no need to worry but rather focus on the work that you have done it has created value or added value to the company of which you own which has increased your assets, the company is matters quite clearly earnings that aren't wages. As above if you are on ACC and continued to work in your company to build the company up such as building machines that are going to be more productive once you have returned to work so you can make even more money then that work and value of that work is of interest to the ACC as there would be a direct proportion of abatement of earnings that would be deducted. Otherwise you could be on ACC continue working for your company carrying out work that does not generate wages and be free to do so without abatement of earnings from places taken place. ACC can't have it both ways for the row financial gain as the ACC would be committing insurance fraud against you if that is what they were doing.

If however you were not working for the purposes of generating earnings and therefore not generating any added value while owning a company With your only form of income being the profits of the company which was generated by other people working then of course you could not claim yourself to be an earner and therefore would not be entitled to earnings compensation is the only income would have been from company profit which of course is none of the ACCs business.
0

#14 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1650
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 July 2018 - 01:20 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

David Butler & antimousey as neither of you know anything about the nature of capitalism, company operations running as a separate entity from the individual despite the fact that the company may be owned by a single individual it follows that there is no possible expectation that you could comment yet you do, why would you dip your or in the what about something you know nothing?
Doppelgänger I asked you a question so as to assist you look invalid at yourself to discover the nature of your error. Your error is further magnified by your suggestion to look at the wrong direction. Try ask the question I have asked honestly and just see what the outcome is when you start to think about how to answer that question yourself.



here we go again from thomas the expert BANKRUPT
You know nothing of others business dealings operation especially mine thomas

you who went bankrupt were charged and found guilty of fraud against the acc and HAD NO MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTS AT ALL :lol:/> publish BOLLOCKS and show yo are nept ncopmpetent n matters of fnacal busness dealngs and operatons LEGALLY of compnay business
the Court records prove that along with you gong BANKRUPT, then stealing money from us all to feather your nest ILLEGALLY but you got caught so to take notice of your advice and instructions re financial matters s something no one s gong to do.
YOU WERE SO DUMB YOU COULDN'T EVEN REALISE -thinking your smarter than everyone else -THAT AS SELF EMPLOYED YOU WERE IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOOK AT LIST OF BEING AUDITED [not withstanding the fraudulent information you presented as well to steal money from acc THE DAY YOU FILED YOUR CLAM WHICH TURNED OUT AS YOU WERE A NO ONE but a loser dumb ass OF FINANCIAL MATTERS YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT RIPPING OFF THE ACC AND OF FRAUD AND WENT TO JAIL


RATHER OBVIOUS FROM ALL THE CONVICTIONS BANKRUPTCY FRAUD ACTIVITY HAVING NO MONEY RELYING ON A BENIFIT YOU HAVE IN YOUR NAME YOUR OF NO KNOWLEDGE OF FUK ALL

SO LISTEN TO YOU THOMAS

NOT A SHITE SHOW OF THAT HAPPENING.
1

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:01 PM

 Hemi, on 11 July 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

here we go again from thomas the expert BANKRUPT
You know nothing of others business dealings operation especially mine thomas

you who went bankrupt were charged and found guilty of fraud against the acc and HAD NO MEANINGFUL ACCOUNTS AT ALL Posted Image/> publish BOLLOCKS and show yo are nept ncopmpetent n matters of fnacal busness dealngs and operatons LEGALLY of compnay business
the Court records prove that along with you gong BANKRUPT, then stealing money from us all to feather your nest ILLEGALLY but you got caught so to take notice of your advice and instructions re financial matters s something no one s gong to do.
YOU WERE SO DUMB YOU COULDN'T EVEN REALISE -thinking your smarter than everyone else -THAT AS SELF EMPLOYED YOU WERE IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOOK AT LIST OF BEING AUDITED [not withstanding the fraudulent information you presented as well to steal money from acc THE DAY YOU FILED YOUR CLAM WHICH TURNED OUT AS YOU WERE A NO ONE but a loser dumb ass OF FINANCIAL MATTERS YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT RIPPING OFF THE ACC AND OF FRAUD AND WENT TO JAIL


RATHER OBVIOUS FROM ALL THE CONVICTIONS BANKRUPTCY FRAUD ACTIVITY HAVING NO MONEY RELYING ON A BENIFIT YOU HAVE IN YOUR NAME YOUR OF NO KNOWLEDGE OF FUK ALL

SO LISTEN TO YOU THOMAS

NOT A SHITE SHOW OF THAT HAPPENING.


REPORTED
Off topicagain you are indulging and all manner of false allegations making false statements fed to you by others that are complete nonsense

0

#16 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8264
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:17 PM

 Hemi, on 10 July 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

You any idea of how companies capital assets as to bookwork accounting is actually carried out via cash introductions from the owners directors shareholders banks loans cash inputs or from anywhere / anyone at all thomas.
You don’t just leave money aside as you state and lessen your taxation obligations.
Not the wonder anymore why your companies failed and you went bankrupt and then had no meaningful accounts to present to show you were not a fraudster.
Your a complete fuk wit.


Yes he is a bull shit artist, and absolutely full of it. Fraudster is a fraud.
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:42 PM

 Brucey, on 11 July 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

Yes he is a bull shit artist, and absolutely full of it. Fraudster is a fraud.


REPORTED
Off topicagain you are indulging and all manner of false allegations making false statements fed to you by others that are complete nonsense
0

#18 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8264
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 11 July 2018 - 03:01 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 02:42 PM, said:

REPORTED
Off topicagain you are indulging and all manner of false allegations making false statements fed to you by others that are complete nonsense


No false allegations there fraudster.
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2018 - 03:03 PM

View PostBrucey, on 11 July 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

No false allegations there fraudster.


REPORTED
Off topic again
0

#20 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1428
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:51 PM

overturn your convictions , of being found guilty of receiving entitlements , allen , and hence report back in a timely and responsible manner to the forum :lol:
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users