Thanks for the reply, James. We are aligned then in our...

Thanks for the reply, James. We are aligned then in our understanding that this $7m is the value of the oysters.

But what I don't understand is why this is being classified as "profit" when it clearly seems like an "asset" to me.

Profit is generally "realised" and tax needs to be paid on it. Asset is capital in nature and can fluctuate - unless the oysters are sold, their value is purely on paper... CGT should only be payable when C is sold, right?

Paying tax on this unrealised gain surely isn't a favourable thing for ATP...

ATP reported a Normalised EBITDA of $7m. But a NPAT of $12.7M. And a tax payment of $3.6M. Which means EBITDA is >$16.3M

This is a situation where EBITDA, not counting the value of the oysters, is LESS than the NPAT... so we are paying tax on the oysters, despite them not being sold to anyone and only functions as an asset to generate the pearls.....

So, in theory, if the oysters keeps growing and we sell zero pearls (and sell zero oysters, obviously), we would still be paying a tax for the "profit" of the growth of the oysters? Really?

Quite confused here......