That was very easy to write wasn't it @BJReplay in Post #:57918158. Took you probably a massive 5 seconds. It would be great for you to explain just how the post is a false dichotomy so that we can all have an intelligent discussion on it. And in the process, explain to those who might not know, exactly what a false dichotomy is, so that they can consider if you have a good argument or not. Two words don't do it.
Let me make it simpler for you. Simply I said:
1. The ATO has accused JK of owing ~$10m 2. The reason ATO says he owes ~$10m is because the ATO claims JK was the sole shareholder of ISX(BVI) at the time of the reverse takeover so the shares given in consideration of the purchase of ISX(BV) and ISX(IP) are his and his alone, triggered a CGT event and are taxable. 3. JK was NOT the sole shareholder of ISX(BVI) at the time of the reverse takeover and there are many public resources that support this fact. 5. Therefore, the shares given by ISX LTD (Otis Energy) to ISX(BVI) at the time of the reverse takeover are not his in their entirety and therefore he cannot be taxed on them in their entirety. 4. Ipso facto: JK does not owe the ATO ~$10m.
Tell everyone, please, how this is a "false dichotomy".
ISX Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
