Hi Marney and all,A write off is merely a book entry and helpful...

Hi Marney and all,

A write off is merely a book entry and helpful for tax minimising as long as it is reasonably arguable. Its legal bearing gos absolutely no further. Why is this so.... because any portion of the writeoff can be written back ( again merely a book entry ) once such is reasonably arguable. For example Burns Philp writedowns as it descended to 3 cents followed by the write backs upon recovery. In a court of law a tax write off is not relevant to title determination - vis a vis it is relvant to tax law.

Legal title in some places ( eg Africa ) is a fluid concept
corruption can see solid contracts thrown assunder
corruption can see title sold where none existed
constitutions can be challenged
constitutionscan be thrown out at the point of a gun/machete
Coups can see perfectly vaild, undisputed legal title, on ALL grounds, lost overnight; such things occur more commonly were great wealth can be won cheaply.

Humbly suggest that 150m expenditure is better grounds than most have for a claim - hardly trivial and not a book entry. If you like Conoco's claim has 3 times the merit of RRS being 3 times as much.

Now if Conoco's title is said to have been valid at the time but no longer is due to a particular 'constitution' no longer exisitng, keep in mind that the same fate can happen to RRS.

Blastoff