MIKIPEDIA ECONOMICS BLOG
DAY TO DAY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & OPINIONS ABOUT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
Monday, August 22, 2016
RON PAUL'S LIBERTY REPORT: WHAT YOU WONT FIND ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK'S FACEBOOK PAGE
Ron Paul talking about the problems with the propaganda created by the Federal Reserve Bank on their newly created facebook page. An essential and interesting conversation.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
WHAT IS THE SUM PAYABLE & THE SUM CERTAIN?
The sum payable
The sum payable must be a sum which is certain, allowing for the variables set out in s14:
14 Sum payable
(1) The sum payable by a bill is a sum certain within the meaning of this Act, although it is required to be paid with, by or according to, as the case requires, any one or more of the following, namely:
(a) interest or bank charges; or
(b) stated instalments; or
(c) stated instalments, with a provision that upon default in payment of any instalment the whole shall become due; or
(d) an indicated rate of exchange, or a rate of exchange to be ascertained as directed by the bill.
(2) Where more than one sum is expressed to be payable in a bill, the lesser or least, as the case may be, of the sums so expressed to be payable shall be taken to be the only sum ordered to be paid by the bill.
(3) Where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest, unless the instrument otherwise provides, interest runs from the date of the bill, and if the bill is undated from the issue thereof.
The ‘sum certain’ must appear on the face of the bill of exchange: Lamberton v Aiken (1899) 37 SLR 138 (which referred to interest); Rosenhain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1922) 31 CLR 46 (interest); Standard Bank of Canada v Wildey (1919) SR (NSW) 384 (considered the term ‘all the bank charges’ was uncertain); Tropic Plastic Packaging Industry v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (1969) 4 SALR 108 (currency rate of exchange with additional words making the amount uncertain).
Where the amount payable is stated in words and numbers, an inconsistency in some jurisdictions is not uncertain as the rule make the amount stated in words payable, see s14(2) and also in the UK s9(2), US UCC s3-118(c), Canada s28(2), NZ s9(2), South Africa s7(2), India s18 and countries which have adopted the Geneva Convention Art 6.
Taken from 3.1 Bills Of Exchange 7-7-6.doc
The sum payable must be a sum which is certain, allowing for the variables set out in s14:
14 Sum payable
(1) The sum payable by a bill is a sum certain within the meaning of this Act, although it is required to be paid with, by or according to, as the case requires, any one or more of the following, namely:
(a) interest or bank charges; or
(b) stated instalments; or
(c) stated instalments, with a provision that upon default in payment of any instalment the whole shall become due; or
(d) an indicated rate of exchange, or a rate of exchange to be ascertained as directed by the bill.
(2) Where more than one sum is expressed to be payable in a bill, the lesser or least, as the case may be, of the sums so expressed to be payable shall be taken to be the only sum ordered to be paid by the bill.
(3) Where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest, unless the instrument otherwise provides, interest runs from the date of the bill, and if the bill is undated from the issue thereof.
The ‘sum certain’ must appear on the face of the bill of exchange: Lamberton v Aiken (1899) 37 SLR 138 (which referred to interest); Rosenhain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1922) 31 CLR 46 (interest); Standard Bank of Canada v Wildey (1919) SR (NSW) 384 (considered the term ‘all the bank charges’ was uncertain); Tropic Plastic Packaging Industry v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (1969) 4 SALR 108 (currency rate of exchange with additional words making the amount uncertain).
Where the amount payable is stated in words and numbers, an inconsistency in some jurisdictions is not uncertain as the rule make the amount stated in words payable, see s14(2) and also in the UK s9(2), US UCC s3-118(c), Canada s28(2), NZ s9(2), South Africa s7(2), India s18 and countries which have adopted the Geneva Convention Art 6.
Taken from 3.1 Bills Of Exchange 7-7-6.doc
Labels:
100% Independent Australian News,
http://mikiversebanks.blogspot.com.au/,
Mikiverse,
Mikiverse 9/11,
Mikiverse Banks,
Mikiverse Health,
Mikiverse Law,
Mikiverse Politics,
Mikiverse Science
Thursday, July 10, 2014
HOW TO OPEN UP A BANK ACCOUNT WITH NO GOVERNMENT ID NUMBERS
Labels:
100% Independent Australian News,
http://mikiversebanks.blogspot.com.au/,
Mikiverse,
Mikiverse 9/11,
Mikiverse Banks,
Mikiverse Health,
Mikiverse Law,
Mikiverse Politics,
Mikiverse Science
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Saturday, May 31, 2014
AMERICA'S ODDEST TAX DODGE
Can Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code save you from income taxes?
Last week, the federal government sued
three businesses in California and Colorado to force them to withhold
payroll taxes from their employees' paychecks. This is the latest
chapter in a bizarre fight between the feds and adherents of what is
known as the "Section 861 argument" or the "861 position."
Despite Attorney General John Ashcroft's
well-documented prudery, the campaign isn't a crusade against people who
delve too deeply into the Kama Sutra. Rather, it's an
effort directed against a band of determined tax law enthusiasts who,
the Justice Department and federal courts say, willfully misinterpret a
section of the Internal Revenue Code in order to duck taxes.
Tax law is a field that naturally attracts people with the ability
and desire to endlessly parse words, clauses, and definitions. Adherents
of Section 861—as in Section 861 of Title 26 in the U.S. Code—exhibit
these extraordinary Talmudic capabilities. Rather than deny the
constitutionality of federal income taxes or the legitimacy of the
Internal Revenue Service, as some cruder tax protesters do, 861
protesters have attempted to ferret out contradictions within the text
of the famously convoluted tax code and beat the government at its own
game. (One 861 advocate's call to arms is titled: "Section 861: The Law
They Hope You Never Read.")
Larken Rose
is one of the primary exponents of the 861 position. Long suspicious of
the federal income tax, Rose, who with his wife operated a small
transcription service in Abington Township, Pa., began to examine
various arguments against it in the 1990s. He found most of them
illogical, until he stumbled on Section 861.
As detailed in his 79-page report,
the code contains general definitions of what constitutes gross income
and taxable income. At first blush, they appear to apply to virtually
all income earned by just about everybody. But certain regulations and
portions of the law that describe when domestic and foreign income are
taxable undermine that commonly held view, Rose claims. "The regulations
say that only income from specific types of commerce, all of which have
some kind of connection to international commerce or federal
possessions, are taxable," says Rose. In other words, if you don't
engage in foreign trade or work in a U.S. possession such as the
Northern Mariana Islands, your earnings shouldn't be subject to the
federal income tax.
The tightly reasoned and plentifullysourced tract,
which relies heavily on complicated disquisitions on the placement of
the word "the" and the definition of "source," is a form of what Walter Olson,asenior
fellow at the Manhattan Institute, calls "folk law": legal claims that
"bubbled up without any encouragement from the legal professions."
Lawyer Bernard Sussman less charitably describes this and other arguments in an online casebook as "Idiot Legal Arguments." Indeed, according to the New York Times, one
of the defendants in last week's 861 lawsuits, James Molen, who co-owns
a floral shop in Chico, Calif., "is part of a movement that contends
that court actions in which names are typed in all capital letters, as
the case filed yesterday was, are not valid." The theory, rejected by
courts many times over,
is that by typing a person's name in all capitals, the courts are
essentially describing a new entity, unrelated to the individual to whom
they mean to refer. (ee cummings' standing under such a regime is
unclear.)
For his part, Larken Rose—who is thoroughly logical—dismisses the all-caps argument, as well as the theories of Irwin Schiff, who argues that there is no law requiring U.S. citizens to pay income taxes.
A generation ago, 861 adherents might have quietly avoided filing
1040s and escaped detection. Furtive, small-scale practitioners of
activity that is illegal but largely harmless—like smoking pot—generally
escape prosecution. Those who do so loudly, however, invite legal
trouble. And 861 followers like Rose have been doing the equivalent of
holding a marijuana smoke-in at a public park. Rose has approached the
IRS to discuss his views and has posted the transcript of one such meeting on his site. He has sold "somewhere between 14,000 and 15,000 legal copies" of the video Theft by Deception.
"I know there are a bunch of bootlegs that are out there," he adds. (It
wouldn't surprise "Moneybox" to learn that there exists among those who
refuse to pay federal income taxes a high propensity to copy
intellectual property.) And at least 100,000 copies of the Rose's
"Taxable Income" report have been downloaded.
By courting controversy and thumbing their nose at the law, the folk
lawyers are striving to become folk heroes. And thanks to the Justice
Department's increasingly vigorous efforts to clamp down on their
activities, they may succeed. The feds have declared it a "a priority to
pursue promoters of frivolous and fraudulent tax schemes." Last May,
Larken Rose's house was raided by the Internal Revenue Service.
But when they have been caught in the maw of the courts, 861ers
haven't had much luck. Judges have repeatedly rejected claims based on
Section 861. As far as the legal system is concerned, it's law settled
many times over. Unlike folk remedies, folk law never seems to work—at
least when it comes to taxes.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2003/07/americas_oddest_tax_dodge.single.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2003/07/americas_oddest_tax_dodge.single.html
Labels:
100% Independent Australian News,
http://mikiversebanks.blogspot.com.au/,
Mikiverse,
Mikiverse 9/11,
Mikiverse Banks,
Mikiverse Health,
Mikiverse Law,
Mikiverse Money,
Mikiverse Politics,
Mikiverse Science
Friday, April 25, 2014
QUEENSLAND MOTORWAYS SOLD FOR $7 BILLION BY QIC LTD
Louise Brannelly The Courier-Mail April 24, 2014
The sale, for $7.057 billion, including stamp duty, is subject to conditions and expected to be completed before the end of September.
It ranks as one of the biggest corporate deals in Australia in recent years.
Many analysts had speculated QIC would only be able to get from $5 billion to $6 billion for the 70km network of tolled roads, bridges and infrastructure.
Queensland Motorways assets include the Gateway, Gateway Extension and Logan motorways, Brisbane's Go-Between Bridge, CLEM7 tunnel and the planned Legacy Way motorway due to open in 2015.
QIC chief executive officer Damien Frawley said the Queensland
Motorways business was held by QIC on behalf of the State's Defined
Benefit Fund, which provides for the superannuation obligations of
current public servants.
"The result is a great outcome for the Defined Benefit Fund, with the net proceeds from the sale to remain in the Defined Benefit Fund to meet public sector superannuation liabilities to existing members," he said.
The state government transferred the business - which at the time included just the Gateway and Logan motorways - to QIC to manage in May 2011 for a market-value price of $3.088 billion.
Mr Frawley said QIC had made substantial progress in commercialising the business since taking over three years ago, installing a highly experienced board and management team.
"They have substantially expanded the road network, including through the unique, unsolicited transaction with Brisbane City Council on Legacy Way and the Go Between Bridge, and the purchase of the CLEM7 motorway for an attractive price," he said.
"There was a high level of interest in the sale process, with a number of competing consortia comprising committed and competitive local and international institutional investors and strategic industry players."
The others bidders were believed to include consortiums with Singapore's government-owned wealth fund GIC, toll-road business Abertis and the Malaysian Government's strategic investment fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad.
Mr Frawley said the Transurban consortium, which the market had considered the frontrunner in the bidding process, has a long-established track record in successfully owning and operating similar assets.
A Transurban spokesman was not available for comment last night.
Chairman Lindsay Maxsted, who was in Brisbane earlier this month to meet local business leaders, said Queensland Motorways was a good fit for his ASX-listed company.
"This has been a quality asset for a long time," he said.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/queensland-motorways-sold-for-7-billion/story-fnihsps3-1226893850757
THE State Government's investment arm QIC Ltd has sold tollway
operator Queensland Motorways for more than $7 billion, a price higher
than many expected it would secure.
The successful bidder was a consortium comprising Transurban,
Australian Super and Tawreed Investments, a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi
Investment Authority.The sale, for $7.057 billion, including stamp duty, is subject to conditions and expected to be completed before the end of September.
It ranks as one of the biggest corporate deals in Australia in recent years.
Many analysts had speculated QIC would only be able to get from $5 billion to $6 billion for the 70km network of tolled roads, bridges and infrastructure.
Queensland Motorways assets include the Gateway, Gateway Extension and Logan motorways, Brisbane's Go-Between Bridge, CLEM7 tunnel and the planned Legacy Way motorway due to open in 2015.
"The result is a great outcome for the Defined Benefit Fund, with the net proceeds from the sale to remain in the Defined Benefit Fund to meet public sector superannuation liabilities to existing members," he said.
The state government transferred the business - which at the time included just the Gateway and Logan motorways - to QIC to manage in May 2011 for a market-value price of $3.088 billion.
Mr Frawley said QIC had made substantial progress in commercialising the business since taking over three years ago, installing a highly experienced board and management team.
"They have substantially expanded the road network, including through the unique, unsolicited transaction with Brisbane City Council on Legacy Way and the Go Between Bridge, and the purchase of the CLEM7 motorway for an attractive price," he said.
"There was a high level of interest in the sale process, with a number of competing consortia comprising committed and competitive local and international institutional investors and strategic industry players."
The others bidders were believed to include consortiums with Singapore's government-owned wealth fund GIC, toll-road business Abertis and the Malaysian Government's strategic investment fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad.
Mr Frawley said the Transurban consortium, which the market had considered the frontrunner in the bidding process, has a long-established track record in successfully owning and operating similar assets.
A Transurban spokesman was not available for comment last night.
Chairman Lindsay Maxsted, who was in Brisbane earlier this month to meet local business leaders, said Queensland Motorways was a good fit for his ASX-listed company.
"This has been a quality asset for a long time," he said.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/queensland-motorways-sold-for-7-billion/story-fnihsps3-1226893850757
Labels:
100% Independent Australian News,
http://mikiversebanks.blogspot.com.au/,
Mikiverse,
Mikiverse 9/11,
Mikiverse Banks,
Mikiverse Health,
Mikiverse Law,
Mikiverse Politics,
Mikiverse Science
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)