Sham Bolic
Member
Any idea how the hell anyone figures its OK to slug SDB holders $350 to get their own property back when we never signed any contract for the Liquidator's services? It's a farce!
Perth Bullion Liquidation
- Thread starter nighttrader
- Start date
Regarding the $350: I am no lawyer, but to me it reads as a limit (to cover expenses and remuneration relating to identifying, preserving and facilitating the return of SDB Goods). It may be the case that the liquidator doesn't charge the majority of those picking up their SDB. It would be reasonable, for example, if the liquidator had to arrange transportation, that there would be a cost associated with that and it is passed onto the SDB owner.
Don't get me wrong, if the liquidator ends up charging $350 to every SDB owner in a grab for cash then it seems pretty unfair, but they may end up charging a lot lower fee (or none at all) for the easier pickups.
Don't get me wrong, if the liquidator ends up charging $350 to every SDB owner in a grab for cash then it seems pretty unfair, but they may end up charging a lot lower fee (or none at all) for the easier pickups.
mrsilverservice
Well-Known Member
Yep life is not always fair
but the main thing is you get what is yours 
Remember for next time - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
The Book of Psalms Chapter 34 verse 7
The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him and delivers them
Sham Bolic
Member
Im not dyslexic but reading the legal gobbledegook makes my head spin - has anyone been able to wade through yesterdays statement from RSM? Specifically - are we free to rock up and get out stuff? Do we have to make an appointment? [ Link to RSM's statement here; https://www.rsm.global/australia/si...se_pty_ltd_in_liquidation_acn_140_221_067.pdf ]
That is a court order, not a statement by RSM. It provides permission and guidance for the process the liquidator should take to disperse the goods to owners. I'd imagine some other communication from RSM would be forthcoming to those who've submitted their documents / proof of ownership.
Sham Bolic
Member
Youre quite right - i called RSM and they said they will email some info soon.
Sham Bolic
Member
Well i wont refrain - i think it stinks! and i'm sure many others do too. however i can easily see how after the fear of 100% loss for the past 3 weeks will cause most to begrudgingly accept it to quickly get past this whole mess!
Sham Bolic
Member
Email now being sent out by the liquidator (RSM)
________________________
This email update should be read in conjunction with previous correspondence issued to interested parties which can be accessed at www.rsm.com.au/perthbullion.
As you may be aware, I recently made an urgent application to Court seeking directions as to how to deal with property of third parties. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 30 July 2019 on an expedited basis and orders were made on that day. A copy of the Orders is attached.
At the hearing, a lawyer appeared for some unidentified safety deposit box holders and my solicitor also made submissions to the Court.
The way is now clear for me to commence the process by which the property of third parties may be returned to them. In this regard, a further circular will be issued to all creditors and other interested parties by close of business Friday 2 August 2019. Details of the Court approved protocols for release of third party property, including the manner in which appointments must be made for collection of property, will be provided in the circular.
Your ongoing understanding and patience is greatly appreciated.
Neil Cribb
Partner – Restructuring & Recovery
RSM Australia Partners
Level 32 Exchange Tower, 2 The Esplanade Perth WA 6000
________________________
This email update should be read in conjunction with previous correspondence issued to interested parties which can be accessed at www.rsm.com.au/perthbullion.
As you may be aware, I recently made an urgent application to Court seeking directions as to how to deal with property of third parties. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 30 July 2019 on an expedited basis and orders were made on that day. A copy of the Orders is attached.
At the hearing, a lawyer appeared for some unidentified safety deposit box holders and my solicitor also made submissions to the Court.
The way is now clear for me to commence the process by which the property of third parties may be returned to them. In this regard, a further circular will be issued to all creditors and other interested parties by close of business Friday 2 August 2019. Details of the Court approved protocols for release of third party property, including the manner in which appointments must be made for collection of property, will be provided in the circular.
Your ongoing understanding and patience is greatly appreciated.
Neil Cribb
Partner – Restructuring & Recovery
RSM Australia Partners
Level 32 Exchange Tower, 2 The Esplanade Perth WA 6000
Strawman
Member
I got stuck in the middle of all this. I ordered 4 x 1oz 2019 gold kangaroos on 4 Jul. Their website was up and taking orders. The court ruling and receiver appointed on 2 Jul. On 9 Jul the receiver took possession of the PB facility. I made a direct deposit transfer on the same day I purchased, 4 Ju..
Good news! The receiver released a circular yesterday (31/7) with with a new court ruling recognising that storage clients, as well as those who had paid but not been shipped, to be the rightful owners of the product and to arrange for collection.
Thank you Argento for your explanation of the GST issue. What a scammy interpretation by the ATO!
A quick point, your last para, isnt quite correct. The dealer wouldnt need to sell the bullion at more than 10% over spot to make money. The GST payable would be on the DIFFERENCE between the spot price and the sale price. So in his example, PB buying at $22 and selling at $24, the GST payable isnt on the $24, just on the mark-up, $2, so GST payable would just be 20c.
A pertinent point: PB wouldnt have been able to claim input GST credits as there was no GST charged by Perth Mint on the sale in the first place. And under the tax gudelines the Mint should have been following the same ruling, charging GST on the difference above spot that they were selling to PB. Because of this PB would rightly have thought that as the mint (govt backed organisation) wasnt charging them GST their interpretation of the ruling was such that they wouldnt need to do so either.
Clearly what is good for the goose isn't as good for the gander.
A now in the light of this new use of cash restriction legislation tabled last Friday, and the timing of the PB receivership injunction (just 2 weeks after the big gold pop on 19 June!), not being a 'conspiracy theorist' but I think this is all related somehow. Scare people out of thinking that gold isn't a good idea and that cash in the bank is safer, then SLAM! announce that cash use is soon to be severely restricted. The new legislation is setting up for -3 to -4% negative interest rates here in Australia. Watch this space.
______
Good news! The receiver released a circular yesterday (31/7) with with a new court ruling recognising that storage clients, as well as those who had paid but not been shipped, to be the rightful owners of the product and to arrange for collection.
Thank you Argento for your explanation of the GST issue. What a scammy interpretation by the ATO!
A quick point, your last para, isnt quite correct. The dealer wouldnt need to sell the bullion at more than 10% over spot to make money. The GST payable would be on the DIFFERENCE between the spot price and the sale price. So in his example, PB buying at $22 and selling at $24, the GST payable isnt on the $24, just on the mark-up, $2, so GST payable would just be 20c.
A pertinent point: PB wouldnt have been able to claim input GST credits as there was no GST charged by Perth Mint on the sale in the first place. And under the tax gudelines the Mint should have been following the same ruling, charging GST on the difference above spot that they were selling to PB. Because of this PB would rightly have thought that as the mint (govt backed organisation) wasnt charging them GST their interpretation of the ruling was such that they wouldnt need to do so either.
Clearly what is good for the goose isn't as good for the gander.
A now in the light of this new use of cash restriction legislation tabled last Friday, and the timing of the PB receivership injunction (just 2 weeks after the big gold pop on 19 June!), not being a 'conspiracy theorist' but I think this is all related somehow. Scare people out of thinking that gold isn't a good idea and that cash in the bank is safer, then SLAM! announce that cash use is soon to be severely restricted. The new legislation is setting up for -3 to -4% negative interest rates here in Australia. Watch this space.
______
Yep and wouldn't surprise me to see the Perth Mint being the only bullion dealer left in Australia...that way they will be able to track who is buying and selling...yes a monopoly.
Also, with the Perth Mint being government backed, cant really see the ATO doing a GST audit on them, as their GST bill would be in the millions based on current ATO rulings and legislation.
Basically to simplify what is happening.....if bullion is sold for more that 10% over spot ...then GST is payable. Now bullion is supposed to be GST free but the way the legislation reads it allows the ATO to interpret the legislation anyway they see fit.
So as we all know , so if spot was $20.....and a dealer sells bullion for 10% over spot = $22.
Now look at the Perth Mint....spot is $21....I think their cheapest coin is about $24 (I could be wrong) so under the new legislation GST is applicable, but the ATO aren't going after the Perth Mint...as I stated before I can see a monopoly on its way.
But then you have Perth Bullion who say buy a bullion coin from Perth Mint for say $22 with their price break, now Perth Bullion need to make money so they sell the coin for $24.....now keeping in mind that spot is $20.....Perth Bullion should be charging GST, as the ATO have manipulated the legislation so they can use the spot price as a bench mark, knowing dam well that no bullion dealer can sell silver for 10% over spot....
before you comment on what I have said..read the legislation (excuse any spelling mistakes or poor grammer
Strawman
Member
Sure, back-orders were not mentioned in the court ruling, however they have stated that uncollected paid orders, and storage holdings were the property of the customer.
Back orders weren't specifically mentioned however the ruling basically states that what is yours is yours, and this would include unexecuted order contracts. You will get a refund if you can support your claim with deposit receipts etc.
Back orders weren't specifically mentioned however the ruling basically states that what is yours is yours, and this would include unexecuted order contracts. You will get a refund if you can support your claim with deposit receipts etc.
Actually ... This statement is incorrect. The GST would be charged over the whole amount.
If the interpretation above was correct then we wouldn't be in this situation at all.
The ATO are demanding full GST. I have suggested many times that GST should only be charged on the non-metal component.
If Only.
Thanks Strawman for your explanation
Strawman
Member
Thank you Captain for correcting me on this. However correction to my statement, I should have said not spot price but purchase price.
But if you are correct in what you say, that the ATO is charging GST on the whole amount then this is ridiculous, and it doesnt follow their very own rules on the way GST works.
Businesses are always allowed to claim product costs and only add GST to the value-add component.
eg A farmer with a commercial enterprise that sells firewood. He gets the wood for 'free' as he chops up dead trees on his farm. GST only kicks in when he sells it. Say at $10 per sack, plus 10% GST, $11 selling price. The retail customer is the one that pays the GST and the farmer includes this on his BAS, remitting the $1 to the ATO. If the farmer sells it to say a servo at that on-sells it for $12 plus GST, the retail customer then pays $13.20. The servo collects the $1.20 GST. However the servo claims an input tax credit of the $1 GST they paid to the farmer so the servos GST liability is only 20c and remits this on their BAS. So, the ATO gets their $1.20 GST ($1 from the farmer and 20c from the servo). There is no 'tax on a tax'.
Moving the analogy to Perth Bullion. If they purchase gold at $2000 and sell for $2100, GST liability would be payable on the $100 mark up. They would claim input tax credits IF there was GST included in their purchase price.
So Perth MINT should/would be selling to PB with GST added on. The miner kicks off the GST train when he sells ore to PM (collects and remits the GST). PM refines and sells with a margin to PB (and collects the GST on the value-add, claims the input tax credit, and remits the difference. PB collects GST on their margin and claims the input tax credit on their purchase).
PB would therefore have no doubt that GST is payable because of the fact that they paid GST on the purchase, so if this was the case PB would be at fault if they were not paying GST on their margin. HOWEVER, if Perth MINT was NOT including GST in their sale to PB (under the rules of bullion not being a GSTable item), then PB would NOT collect or pay GST on their margin (under the rules of bullion not being a GSTable item).
So, the question comes down to this. Did Perth MINT sell the bullion to PB with GST or not.
-If YES, then PB would be in default if they were NOT collecting and remitting GST to the ATO. It would be very clear that this was a GSTable sale.
-If NO, then it should be Perth MINT that the ATO should be going for, not PB!!!
If there is no GST on bullion there should be no GST on bullion. If Perth MINT is claiming some sort of Royal, Commonwealth, Govt, Reserve status and because of this not adding GST to the sale to PB it is totally outside the GST rules for PB to be put on the hook for their markup.
This is the crux of the matter the way I see it. Comments please, I would really like to understand exactly where GST kicked in along the chain from miner to final customer ie you and me.
Thanks Strawman, that's a really great explanation and the first time I have got my head around the key issue
Strawman
Member
Further to my last. The miner does not sell the ore to Perth MINT with GST added on because he has already paid royalties to the Commonwealth on what he has taken from the ground (no tax on a tax), so therefor the ATO view would view Perth MINT as the producer (with the miner and refiner all being rolled into one ie the farmer in my analogy. So if Perth MINT, being the Govt, the primary producer, and following the 'no GST on bullion rule, sells to PB without GST then this is where it get messy, and most likely where the trouble all started. If there is no GST on bullion there is no GST on bullion. PB would sell to customer with no GST (they would of course pay income tax on their profit margin income). If the ATO wants to switch the rules at the retail level (PB) then under the rules of no GST on bullion PB would be exempt from paying GST to Perth MINT, exempt from adding GST to the purchase-price component of the retail price, and charge GST only on their mark-up. If the ATO expects PB to charge GST on the full retail price then there IS GST on bullion!! It was most likely that PB was thinking that they some quasi Perth MINT status and didnt believe that GST was payable on their mark-up (between purchase price and retail price). PB is in fact a retailer and should be paying GST on their margin but weren't, and this is where PB got into trouble I bet.
bron.suchecki
Well-Known Member
Strawman, just note there are three different types of GST:
- GST Free - 0% rate, business can claim input tax credits for GST paid on supplies
- Input Taxed - 0% rate, business CANNOT claim input tax credits for GST paid on supplies
- Taxed - 10% rate, business can claim input tax credits for GST paid on supplies
Sham Bolic
Member
So - anyone gonna contest the $350 collection fee? or just cop it?