please do not threaten us ! , page-70

Hi CB,

I am as confused as you are about this situation. I would have to agree with you that, if Freestone was to be engaged by CTP to perform the work, and then Freestone was to send RC to fulfill the duties required by the contract/agreement, then Freestone would have to be the one that collect the money, not RC. The reasons that I am thinking along these lines is becasue RC would then not be directly employed by CTP but Freestone would be.

If that was to be the case, then one would be forgiven to think that a GST component should apply to the charges for payment made.
For what it matters though, the GST component is not here or there, as, while CTP would have to pay it to Freestone, they will be able to claim it all back as a refund on the lodgement of the next BAS, and Freestone will have to pay that amount to the ATO when they will lodge their own BAS.

What confuses me more, is the fact about the Superannuation payment which has been mentioned in the release. How can RC receives the superannuation payment from CPT when he is not directly employed by CTP, and while Freetsone has been contracted to perfom that job.

But, it could also be the case that RC is the one that is going to get paid by being himself directly employed by CTP, and then all of the money received, including the superannuation contributions, will be transferred to a RC private company (Freestone in this case). If this last scenario was to be the case, then IMO no GST should be required to be paid as RC would just be an ordinary employee of CTP.

Then again, if one was allowed to read the full term and condition of the agreement/contract between the two parties, he/she could arrive to a better conclusion as to what is going on. At the moment all we are doing is guessing. And the same could apply for the Superannuations contributions which have been mentioned as being a part of his employement conditions.

I have to agree that that announcement released by CTP specifying the payments detail is, at the very least, very confusing. But again, what can we expect from this Board.
It could very well be the case that they may have not been fully open with us.

One more thing before I finish. And that is, why would RC open/register a new company only a few days before the release of the Announcement telling us that he was going to be employed by CTP.
Why not making use of another one of his already existing private companies which I am sure he would have. That to me smells a bit, because if something was to backfire, that company would have nothing to back it up.

Sorry if I can't be more specific.

DYOR.

++++++++

Karll you wrote:

("ie you can't be CEO and not have a seat on the board, therefore the board payment may be part of the package already.")

Not necessarily. Not always a CEO is part of the Board. In the majority of cases they are but, in some cases (although very rare) it is not. And the payment received by a CEO/MD for the performance of his duties, does not always incorporate the payment for having a seat on the Board.
Reason being, that a Director is employed by the shareholders and as such he receive his Directorship emoluments, and then the Board appoints the CEO and the CEO gets the remunerations for his duties on top of the one he/she gets for being a Director.

Usually these figures are outlined in the Financials of individual companies, (depending how well they have been presented to the investors) when they are released to the market.

From memory, JH's basic salary amounted to a figure of between $300k and $350k, but if you look at his total remuneartion and emoluments for the year, that figure has increased dramatically to cater for that.

There are some companies out there, depending on who prepare the financials of course, that shows the item of expenses for Executives remuneration separate from the Directors one, and others that prefer to put it altogether in one lump sum.

I always prefer to see them listed as two separate costs/expenses to the company in the Financials. Reason being that, shown in that way, it would express the total costs of the Executives for the year, separate from the one for the Board of Directors.

Cheers.