Perth Bullion Liquidation

Is there a link for an article on what PB got done for as I keep seeing people mentioning GST?

I have noticed ABC Bullion mention GST in their Barring Charges

https://www.abcbullion.com.au/barring-charges

Example
Assume you have 1 troy ounce of gold bullion in ABC Pool Allocated Product, worth AUD $1,500. Assume that at the same time, ABC Bullion is selling a physical 1 troy ounce gold cast bar for AUD $1,530.

In this case, the differential between your holdings, and the physical cast bar itself, is AUD $30.

If you wanted to convert your 1 troy ounce of ABC Pool Allocated Product into a 1 ounce ABC Bullion gold cast bar, then the fee you would pay would simply be AUD $30, plus GST.

 

I know that investment grade gold and silver are exempt form GST in Australia.
But I'm yet to school myself up on capital gains tax on it at an investment level.

 

Sham - you didn't answer my question. Who should pay for the liquidator's time to facilitate sdb holders to get their stuff (which btw includes identifying what's there, communicating with sdb holders & arranging collection)?
Didn't get it backwards, the fee isn't going towards the liquidation of the company, but towards the time involved in dealing with 3rd parties getting their assets. Who else should pay but said 3rd parties?

 

Similar to the rare coin company liquidation out of the assets of the company! Please read the information regarding the windup of this company for some background

 

your confusing dealer license from being a registered Australian Business,
If you dont pay the correct GST to the gov and they Audit you then you lose.
I honestly dont get how an owner of a business doesn't know the laws around what is GST free and what isnt. They did sell and buy items that dont get slugged with GST that is for sure, but they sold and bought plenty of items that did incur GST. But every business owner does need to know what is charged tax and what isnt so you avoid this happening, Every body who has run a business knows that laws and tax systems change all the time and its something every business needs to keep on top of knowing, ignorance isnt an excuse if it is infact true as they claim they didnt know. lol which i find hard to believe, seriously as if a company like that is that ignorant, Its more of an attempt as an excuse to stay out of jail for tax fraud would be my guess.
they played dumb and they lost and they played dumb and lost at the expense of their clients.

 

Sorry Jason but you have no idea of the ruling against PB, they were not playing dumb, they were trying to defend themselves doing what all the other bullion dealers do. Understanding the ruling against them will give you a better picture of the circumstance surrounding their liquidation.

 

The ATO decided to change their interpretation of what bullion is, meaning stock that PB had been buying GST free and selling GST free were GST liable. As they had not

Its standard CGT like any other investment. As value increases you pay a tax on the increase in value.

 

From what they claim they were buying scrap metal and thought it was under the same category as bullion, which is clearly not the case.one requires the collection of GST the other doesnt.
The rules of what is considered bullion have been very clear cut for a long time, its on the ATO website.
they were playing dumb.

The ATO has been trying to crack down on this sort tax scam that has been going on in the bullion trade for years which is usually done by small gold buyer companies, you would have thought Perth bullion would know better and kept on top of the GST thing to avoid looking like one of these GST scammers.

https://thewest.com.au/business/gst/ato-blitz-on-1-billion-gold-gst-scammers-ng-b88929944z

https://www.smh.com.au/business/aus...-gold-industry-tax-fraud-20170402-gvbvbq.html

so they are either really dumb as they claim and dont understand the tax system or they were trying a scam like above out and got caught.

 

You are reffering to an entirely different situation where scrupulous individuals attempted to rob the Government of GST. This did not involve PB.

PB were buying GST free bullion from Perth Mint and on selling it like many other dealers GST Free. The ATO then decided it was not GST free because it has a "collectible design". Except that rule does not apply to government owned Perth Mint.

 

Been trying to get a quote all day to transport the stack over east - its like pulling teeth - 1 failed to answer email AT ALL all day - Armaguard gave a rough quote but wont give exact quote until setting up an account - and Brinks, get this, wont even give a quote without filling out a 2 page pdf asking for address, source of income, contingency plan upon death (wtf?), social security number and passport number - and not just passport number but copy of passport - this just for a goddamned quote not even at contract stage - what the hell is going on in Australia? Anyone know why transport companies are so anal here?

 

may be there is a sub section, that got inserted into a 20,000 pages of legislation each time a new law is being passed,
we need to get this passed into law, so that we can find out what they are and read them
if we are online, and with just a click then the law is updated, wow... there is no way to know what is the law, the itchy hands keep clicking update on that mouse
we are under different tax regime, hence the understanding would be way off
even the tax office can have variations of interpretations then the dealers are doomed

 

Again your wrong, get your facts straight, you have no idea what your talking about.

 

Any update regarding the success or not of the latest application?

Just checked court listing hearing tomorrow
Looks like five or more represented parties to question application

 

Yeah, I disagree. If these expenses are paid for out of the assets of the company, effectively the creditors of the company pay for the liquidator to deal with 3rd party assets. Somewhat a grey-zone whether these are costs incurred in the winding up of the company. Thus you'll find different approaches across different liquidations.

 

Youve got it ass backwards - why should 3rd parties pay for creditors of the liquidated company - creditors voluntarily engaged in extending credit to a company - 3rd parties didn't - 3rd party property holders already own their own property - what part of this dont you understand you liquidation industry shill?!

 

effectively the creditors of the company pay for the liquidator to deal with 3rd party assets

That the company have contracted and received consideration from the 3rd party to supply a service as part of their business

You may disagree but there is no doubt in my mind.I believe it is unreasonable to expect consumers to reinsure after insurance has been paid. I believe it is unreasonable to ask/demand an indemnity. I believe it is unreasonable to ask/demand a $350 $3300 fee after a consumer has paid a consideration for the service contracted and supplied by the business .

Interesting to see how the most recent application goes now that there may be some opposition to the reasonableness of the orders sought

 

You are aware that creditors of the company include unallocated holders and employees, ey? Not just the bank and suppliers who extended credit. Why should they pay the liquidator to give other people their stuff?!
And Sham - no need for rude language. Grow up...

 

Why should they pay the liquidator to give other people their stuff

Because it is part of winding up the business ( they don’t actually pay but it does come from the company funds )

You haven’t mentioned the insurance, indemnity or excessive fee aspects of the case. Do you have a opinion on these?

 

You call it company. I see it as assets and a bunch of ppl who are owed money. Maybe that's why I view it as who pays for what.

So whilst I think reimbursing the liquidator for all costs incurred in dealing with sdb holders is reasonable, the amount of $150k ($350x450) seems high, even when incorporating identification & distribution of assets, security, comms with sdb holders, legal & court costs, etc. Though I guess legal costs (& senior staff time) may be out of whack if many sdb holders are challenging the liquidator. And that may also be the justification for the higher cost for large sdb holders, as they'd probably be the ones engaging their own solicitors. Obvs this is speculation; I still haven't read the Court application and haven't seen the rem report. Would be interesting to know how the liquidator justified the different fees.

Re the indemnity, I'd expect nothing else from a liquidator given he is personally liable for certain post-appointment debts and wants to expedite the winding-up. But as a sdb holder I would seek legal advice and liaise with the insurance company to make sure I am protected in case my holdings are gone, possibly taking out a new policy as suggested by the liquidator. I don't think I'd execute the indemnity without making sure my stuff is there and/or I know I am protected.

 

I had a SDB & got my stuff.

I sort of expected to pay but the way I see it is if the RSM charges are reasonable for associated work involved in distributing 3rd party property.

If there was no 3rd party property in the building RSM probably in the 1st month would of emptied the building & there would be a for sale or for lease sign on the building, they are only still incurring costs on the building to necessitate the distribution of 3rd party property.

1 month, 3 months or however number of months they have to keep the building going will cost money & RSM have gone to where the money is.