Here's a link for the IBS drug I was talking about in case
anyone is interested...

http://www.zelnorm.com/index.jsp

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
You're talking about anecdotal
evidence vs. actual reliable data.


Because of the highly variable symptoms for UC and IBS, just about every
study
made has been based on anecdotal data, inlcuding the familial link
statistics
cited recently at 15-20%, below the keying factor. As for cancer rates,
IBS
patients have a higher rate and UC patients are told to get scoped twice
as
often for just this reason. A person with UC needs to be scoped at a
younger
age as well. Some doctors suggest 35 as a starting point.
Here's a link.
http://ibscrohns.about.com/library/b...itiscancer.htm

And this from the CFSN site:

Irritable bowel syndrome is an epidemic in the United States. More than 5%
of
the population is afflicted by "idiopathic" (cause unknown) bowel
discomfort,
urgency, and diarrhea type symptoms. IBS can progress to colitis, but is
different in that colonoscopy finds no obvious pathological changes in the
bowel.

RB

Bwaaahahahahahahahaa!
Hope you'r having fun.


Doesn't seem like it.

RB

You really are a pit bull when you get into something. I have never seen you
admit you were wrong, and I don't expect to see it now. But nonetheless:

Cause there are a million better ways to get gains or income out and cause
you're gonna turn capital gains into personal income that way - not too
smart.

Jesus, maybe you should talk to someone who actually knows about
company accounting in Oz.

This is a non-answer. Why don't you explain the benefit from your ridiculous
structure. I have explained the problems. If you don't even know why you have
it that way, then you have been taken for a ride.

The fact that you don't even know who AAR is or would say that "they don't
know
**** about Oz" tells all. They are the biggest Oz law firm and the leading
tax
advisor there and the firm consisting of some of my best friends (see, all
Ozzies are not assholes).
Bwaaahahahhahahahahahahahhaaaa!
The biggest Oz law firm?
Bwaaahahhahahahahahhahahaaaaa!
Never heard of them.
You one of those Yanks who says
"My mate lives in Australia, you probably know him"

It is easily verifiable. The fact that you have never heard of them says more
about your knowledge than mine. You just keep diggin deeper. Its like someone
claiming to have the state of the art boat, but having never heard of, say,
Morris or Hinckley.

My accountants have set up my affairs to my advantage, I'm NOT an
accountant, I believe what they tell me.

Well, that's probably the crux of the problem. Ask your "niece" to think if
the corporate form is the wisest way to hold investment securities. Its not
and you claiming you do is either a lie or the result of horribly poor advice.

G'day Alfie.

Hey Kitchy, I'm no accountant.
Experts are there to be used, I use them...

Don't rely on them without knowing why they are requesting you do something.
Rule no. 1.

If it all falls down I am not personally liable providing I have not
breached my duties as a director. ie trading when insolvent.
Good eh?

Without knowing the specifics, Skitchy is ****ing into the wind suggesting
any
part of your situation is not "proper."

Proper has nothing to do with it, Bob. His statement above is correct,
except
he fails to note that he would also be personable liable if the corporate
shell
is a mere instrumentality of his, which it appears to be. This ain't ****
into
the wind, rather **** on a stupid ownership structure.

OK Kitchy, maybe you could show us your accountancy degree.
Oh, BTW my niece is an associate and very soon will be a partner
"in one of the biggest accounting firms in Oz"
Not AAR I'm afraid.......

As I've said AAR is not an accounting firm and you not being aware of them
indicates you are a small fry. No problem with that, but nothing wrong with
getting good advice. You should have your niece look over what you are doing.
Maybe then you'll see the light. You probably have a one or two man shop
handling your work now, which often results in less than efficient structures.
But to each his own - pay double taxes if you want I dont' care.

G'day and good luck.

As I've said AAR is not an accounting firm and you not being aware of them
indicates you are a small fry. No problem with that, but nothing wrong with
getting good advice. You should have your niece look over what you are
doing.

Well actually she works for the firm I use but she has a policy of not
working directly with family.
One of the senior partnrs is my main contact.

Seing as you are so well versed in Oz accounting, you may have heard
of them..HLB Mann Judd?
I could understand if you haven't.

Mid-tier Oz accounting firm. Big deal.

Maybe then you'll see the light. You probably have a one or two man shop
handling your work now, which often results in less than efficient
structures.
But to each his own - pay double taxes if you want I dont' care.

Ahh dear still working on incorrect assumptions.
Double taxes...Bwaaahahhaahahhahhahaaaaaaa!

OK. Then back to square one. Explain, as I have asked numerous times, why you
have organized as you have. You are quite eager to avoid answering this very
simple question. Either you don't know or you haven't really done what you've
said. Tough for you to choose, I know, because it is not clear which is least
embarassing for you.

Dear oh dear,
It's done for all the usual reasons that businesses are incorporated
in Oz.

That's a cop out. You just don't know why, and that's amazing.

Talk to your lawyer friend, he might give you some insight into what
is one of the most complicated tax systems in the World.

Rubbish.

SkitchNYC wrote:

Dear oh dear,
It's done for all the usual reasons that businesses are incorporated
in Oz.

That's a cop out. You just don't know why, and that's amazing.

Talk to your lawyer friend, he might give you some insight into what
is one of the most complicated tax systems in the World.

Rubbish.

Skitch, Oz has you bouncing up and down on a hook that resembles
a thirty-pound fisherman (no doubt on an all-chain rode.)
Everything he has said is correct under Australian corporate law.
My business, which was once a simple two-person partnership, had
to incorporate (long ago) for precisely the reasons he is listing
and you refuse to believe. When the other partner bows out and
I'm running as sole trader, it will still be a company with
protection provided I don't breach my duties as a director.

The reason lies not with Oz's strangeness but withe the
strangeness of the Australian corporation laws, and for that
matter the strangeness of Australian taxation laws, which now run
to 24 volumes or something ridiculous, so complex that only
specially trained, tutored and accredited taxation accountants
can cope with it, and only then when running on refresher courses
every six months. One example should suffice. Were you aware an
Assistant Taxation COmmissioner in Australia can make law which
assumes your guilty and demands you pay up first before any
contest of defence can be started? It's called a "determination"
and while it can be over-ruled by a court, that may take a couple
of years and several hundred thousand dollars to achieve.

So Oz is cheerily leading you on by stating nothing but the
truth. As the truth is so outlandish, you refuse to believe it,
thus demonstrating your limitiations as a Googler. Yet you
yourself are party, daily, to even more outlandish perversions of
logic and legislation, those being the contractual agreement
covering your use of software...
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com