by dedja » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:11 am
by Dutchy » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:55 am
topsywaldron wrote:dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.
As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.
Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.
by am Bays » Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:44 am
Dutchy wrote:topsywaldron wrote:dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.
As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.
Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.
What is the benefit of moving the funds in and out of these said trusts?
by wild dog » Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:02 pm
Dog Day Afternoon wrote:wild dog wrote:Companies can be the trustees of trusts. You can then transfer back over to the company to limit taxation in a good year. Pay your flat company tax rate and then pay back to directors etc.. as fees you see fit (within reason) with the franking credit applied. To make the books appear better one year, do you reduce the payment of such directors and increase in following years.
But to do this the incentive is to save tax. Sporting clubs don't pay Company Tax. So why would they pay the additional accounting fees to arrange all of this? And if they did there would be transactions reported in their books showing movements to possibly related entities that would show up in the audited reports. If this is happening in any SANFL club please supply some facts that can be checked.
by PatowalongaPirate » Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:08 pm
wild dog wrote:Dog Day Afternoon wrote:wild dog wrote:Companies can be the trustees of trusts. You can then transfer back over to the company to limit taxation in a good year. Pay your flat company tax rate and then pay back to directors etc.. as fees you see fit (within reason) with the franking credit applied. To make the books appear better one year, do you reduce the payment of such directors and increase in following years.
But to do this the incentive is to save tax. Sporting clubs don't pay Company Tax. So why would they pay the additional accounting fees to arrange all of this? And if they did there would be transactions reported in their books showing movements to possibly related entities that would show up in the audited reports. If this is happening in any SANFL club please supply some facts that can be checked.
The discussion as I was interpreting it was on the manipulation of balances between entities to make a year look better or worse. Yes the scenario I provided was based on balancing out good and bad years to ensure tax is paid fairly. In the end though there are mechanisms to ensure an organisations results are presented in a certain manner - apparently Qantas is doing that now. Eventually all has to come to light but it can take time for that to become clear. I'm not aware of any SANFL club doing it but its not illegal. I want to state clearly I'm no accountant but I have a very good one and I listen very carefully
by topsywaldron » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:19 pm
am Bays wrote:Dutchy wrote:topsywaldron wrote:dedja wrote:Yes, a mate of a mate who used to work with a mate said so.
As opposed to your so called indisputable facts of course.
Anyway, back in the real world and not Dedja's pixieland, maybe it is only Norwood who move money in and out of Trusts that have no obligation to report publicly.
What is the benefit of moving the funds in and out of these said trusts?
It allows for the propagation of conspiracy theories....
by dedja » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:22 pm
by Wedgie » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:23 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by topsywaldron » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:29 pm
dedja wrote:Should stick to selling LPs mate.
by Wedgie » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:30 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by dedja » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:35 pm
by Dog Day Afternoon » Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:29 pm
wild dog wrote:Dog Day Afternoon wrote:wild dog wrote:Companies can be the trustees of trusts. You can then transfer back over to the company to limit taxation in a good year. Pay your flat company tax rate and then pay back to directors etc.. as fees you see fit (within reason) with the franking credit applied. To make the books appear better one year, do you reduce the payment of such directors and increase in following years.
But to do this the incentive is to save tax. Sporting clubs don't pay Company Tax. So why would they pay the additional accounting fees to arrange all of this? And if they did there would be transactions reported in their books showing movements to possibly related entities that would show up in the audited reports. If this is happening in any SANFL club please supply some facts that can be checked.
The discussion as I was interpreting it was on the manipulation of balances between entities to make a year look better or worse. Yes the scenario I provided was based on balancing out good and bad years to ensure tax is paid fairly. In the end though there are mechanisms to ensure an organisations results are presented in a certain manner - apparently Qantas is doing that now. Eventually all has to come to light but it can take time for that to become clear. I'm not aware of any SANFL club doing it but its not illegal. I want to state clearly I'm no accountant but I have a very good one and I listen very carefully
by dedja » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:10 pm
by blueandwhite » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:08 pm
by LPH » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:23 pm
dedja wrote:Anyway, we can debate until the Cows come home how clubs report their finances, but the original question by the OP was how each club is going financially.
I'm interested in this also so would appreciate any details people might have before the Annual Reports are released.
by wild dog » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:32 pm
Dog Day Afternoon wrote:wild dog wrote:The discussion as I was interpreting it was on the manipulation of balances between entities to make a year look better or worse. Yes the scenario I provided was based on balancing out good and bad years to ensure tax is paid fairly. In the end though there are mechanisms to ensure an organisations results are presented in a certain manner - apparently Qantas is doing that now. Eventually all has to come to light but it can take time for that to become clear. I'm not aware of any SANFL club doing it but its not illegal. I want to state clearly I'm no accountant but I have a very good one and I listen very carefully
The scenario you are describing is not legal in most cases and not relevant for sporting clubs that are defined as not for profit. This means that they don't pay Company Tax. What is happening in Qantas is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. It has been alleged that Glenelg is "cooking the books". I can see no factual basis for this claim and no motive or mechanism that would suggest it is being attempted.
by Dutchy » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:00 pm
topsywaldron wrote:
If only Glenelg fans could turn their obvious and innate superiority off the park into onfield performance.
The massaging of figures via Trusts and other entities was always done at Norwood to hide their true financial position from members. Many a AGM at Norwood ended with the Treasurer inviting people to come 'and have a chat with me afterwards' in order to provide an off the record snapshot of where we really stood that year.
Of course Dedja will deny this happened, he knows everything.
by dedja » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:02 pm
by Dog Day Afternoon » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:45 pm
wild dog wrote:Dog Day Afternoon wrote:wild dog wrote:The discussion as I was interpreting it was on the manipulation of balances between entities to make a year look better or worse. Yes the scenario I provided was based on balancing out good and bad years to ensure tax is paid fairly. In the end though there are mechanisms to ensure an organisations results are presented in a certain manner - apparently Qantas is doing that now. Eventually all has to come to light but it can take time for that to become clear. I'm not aware of any SANFL club doing it but its not illegal. I want to state clearly I'm no accountant but I have a very good one and I listen very carefully
The scenario you are describing is not legal in most cases and not relevant for sporting clubs that are defined as not for profit. This means that they don't pay Company Tax. What is happening in Qantas is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. It has been alleged that Glenelg is "cooking the books". I can see no factual basis for this claim and no motive or mechanism that would suggest it is being attempted.
FFS were discussing a complicated issue in simplistic terms. I did not realise we were debating taxation principles although I will add that it is an individuals right to limit paying taxation as long as it is legal. Im a c**t from lizbeff and Ill be f**ed if im going to pay more of my hard earned that I have to. Qantas was an analogy and if you think its irrelevant, then so be it.
I am not saying Glenelg is cooking the books again - there has been no mention of Kerls gatekeeper at all from me. Im saying that a theoretical organisation, as is its legal right, has the ability to present income in a balanced way across annualised periods. Topsy is suggesting that an organisation can do so for the purpose of demonstrating that the current set up is working on a philosophical level, not for taxation purposes. I am suggesting that it is possible, not that it is happening. There endeth the sermon, and my input on this matter.
by dedja » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |