Have we got a luvers’ tiff going here, or what ?! Comeon you two.. you’re off track from what we’re supposed to be striving for. Can you please kiss and make up !!

We’re almost on the final leg of this journey and we need to see the finish together. Luv you both !

The powers give to the CEO of FIRCA include the broadest possible
discretion:

“^8. The Commissioner shall not be bound by any return or
information supplied by or on behalf of a taxpayer and,
NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH RETURN OR INFORMATION, or, if no
return has been made, THE COMMISSIONER MAY DETERMINE
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX TO BE PAID BY ANY PERSON.”

It looks to me like the new CEO, not the original one fired by Chodopu$$, may have exercised his discretion and accepted whatever story the Chodopu$$ had put up. He can do it. But is it legal? Is it transparent or defensible? These are different questions and we should not expect any answers from the dictatorship.

A quick read of the report by the three amigos who looked at the FIRCA files suggests that the new CEO. Tikolevu, may have made the assessment. The report simply described the decision not to treat the principal sums remitted to Australian accounts as income as ‘reasonable’, (t does not reveal the basis for the decision, nor when it was made; If was clearly ‘reasonable’ from the point of view of Chaudhry. Was it also ‘reasonable’ from the point of view of FIRCA’s obligation to collect taxes?

In relation to funds deposited about the same time in New Zealand the report states: “FIRCA files do not disclose the basis on which they concluded that funds paid into the New Zealand term deposits were not taxable”. It also defends this omission by saying that the amounts were not as large as the Australian deposits. This surely indicates which way the three amigos were willing to lean in looking at this case.

The essential point is when was the assessment on tax on the monies from India made. If it was made while Chaudhry was illegally occupying the position of minister responsible for FIRCA, this is yet another scandal proving that the clean-up excuse for the coup that has ruined Fiji is a hollow lie.

Author: Rodrick Mukumbira

WINDHOEK -

New-kid-on-the-block, Templar Minerals Ltd, has snatched 24.8% of AIM-quoted River Diamonds PLC, as the UK-based mining company moved forward with reviving Fiji’s Emperor Gold Mine which has a potential of producing 100,000 ounces annually.

Formed earlier this year, Templar Minerals paid £3.75 million for 250 million ordinary shares at the placing price of 1.5p per share.

By Thursday, River Diamonds PLC had gained 18.60% or 0.40 pence to trade at 2.55 pence per share, bringing the company’s market capitalisation to £21.385 million, as the market reacted to the news that it had raised funds for the gold mine.

“It’s just an investment,” Kiran Morzaria, River Diamonds PLC’s finance director, was quick to say when contacted by Mineweb. “Templar Minerals does not have board positions. We are still going to discuss with them as to how we will cooperate on the gold mining project.”

Ironically, David Lenigas, the Chairman of Templar Minerals, served as manager of Emperor Gold Mine between 1989 and 1992.

In late September River Diamonds PLC announced that it was raising its indirect stake in the Emperor Gold mine by upping its stake to 20 pct from 12.5 pct in Viso Gero Inc, which indirectly owns 94 pct of the mine.

Morzaria said Thursday £1.75 million of the total proceeds would be used to subscribe for the 7.5% of shares in Viso Gero Inc, while the remaining £2 million would be used as working capital.

The Emperor Gold Mine’s assets include four mining areas with three shafts serviced by recently refurbished mine winders, pumps, hoists and associated equipment necessary to operate a 140,000 ounce per year underground mining operation.

It is one the longest continuously-operating high grade mines in the world with an operational history that extends over 70 years. The mine commenced production in 1936 and has produced approximately 7 million ounces of gold.

The mine was placed on care and maintenance in December last year due to corporate problems with its previous owner’s gold hedging book and non related issues. At that time, it had a JORC approved underground delineated gold reserve of 858,000 ounces within a total gold resource of 4.76 million ounces grading 9.1 grams per ton.

“In 70 years, the mine has never made a profit and we intend to change that,” Morzaria told Mineweb. “We don’t have hedge books and we will take advantage of the current high gold prices.”

Morzaria also said the Emperor Mine had not made a profit because of conditions set by the Fiji military government on the previous owners, DRD, that they employ 2000 Fijians at the operation.

In August, River Diamonds PLC’s unit Westech Gold Pty Ltd signed a deed with the government of Fiji that grants several key concessions to the Emperor Gold Mine, which are a key step in returning the mine to production.

“We will reduce the work load to 700 people from the historical 2,000, but we are looking into where we will place the remaining 1300. No-one will be made redundant,” he said.

Last week River Diamonds said that mining operations at the Emperor Mine have restarted with the re-commissioning of the two main production shafts, adding the mine rehabilitation is progressing well with ore production commencing before the end of the month.

It also said the commissioning of the processing plant would be completed before the end of the year and the company was anticipating producing about 400 ounces of gold from material left in the mill circuit as part of the treatment plant re-commissioning.

The company said the focus for the next nine months would be on the extraction of ore from the upper areas of the mine, which have total gold reserves of 194,000 tonnes grading at 9.7 grams per ton and 263,000 tons grading at 8.9 grams per tonne, respectively.

Whoever posted the real Jack post in here, from that other board - why don’t you post some of his posts that are critical of the Qarase regime.

Come on idiot - the issue here was that if the money in Chaudary’s account was his personal funds, then taxes should be paid on any interest earned. Chaudary’s contends that the money was being held in trust.

So the case would hinge on whether technically Chaudary can prove that the money was in trust (including showing whether there was a trust account set up etc).

Hey Islandboy - this blog ain’t about you…I know you are enjoying it.

Matbe we should meet sometime and I’ll show you how much English I know.Maybe French too,and Tongue-fu.

FYI - I glory in being a lazy flat slob, YUMMMM! Come join me on the couch lover, I’ll whisper a few words of wisdom in your ear and show you my blog, if you show me yours. But first, you must promise to stop tripping on me!

From an auditing standpoint, it is very difficult to round up a case of this nature in a weekend. Obtaining names of each donor from India would take months I am sure..The donors is a number of individuals who should be holding a receipt for the amounts being donated. We very much doubt that the donor was a single organisation or individuals.

By the way, when did Taufa became an auditor? I am sure she must have been struglling completing her personal returns which could be done within 2 minutes….

From the FT perspective, I am sure that this would be an area where they will be targeting and the process involved in tax auditing would also be an area of concern…Lets cheer them up people….they will crack when the crunch time comes…