AVZ Discussion 2022

Frank

Top 20
Splitting the North for Compo ?
I am hoping the US tells DRC if you want protection for minerals that the North must be returned to Dathcom / AVZ.as Comminiere /Zijin have no legal right.
Highly unlikely that the corruption shown by Zijin that they will seek ICC.
Trump will certainly show no compensation towards China.

How can it be sold to Zijin again when they Comminiere / Zijin think they can and are proceeding to mine it.
Need a Presidential decree from Felix to suspend Zijin and Comminiere from Manono.

1744810001906.png


this is fine !.png




Shame !!! .jpg
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 6 users

Aeolian

Member
3 months deliberation
then court hands down findings
then awards (think of this as sentencing)
then appeals process (inevitable regardless of who's found to be in violation)
then liquidation of awards
If it goes the full process, we'll definitely be into 2026 (but for the record, I don't believe this will be allowed to proceed in June).

Also, (and my apologies if this sounds negative), we must remember that if all goes to plan, we'll be selling at asset level. This means it's highly likely that proceeds will get returned to SHs as non franked dividends after the exploitation of any relevant local tax breaks and an ATO class ruling (this takes another 3 months). The ROC% will be relatively small.

Unfortunately this is something that the majority of SHs won't care about given they are off shore entities). Forget share buy backs etc. The only way around it as i see it is if its a deal with a RIO whereby we take equity (highly unlikely) or a very small chance of relisting with a similar asset purchased from Manono sale funds (again highly unlikely and a ridiculous amount of red tape) - again majority of large SHs are based off shore and happy with cash.

I've just been through a very similar example with LLL / FFX (forced sale to the Chinese at asset level in Mali) and PSC (sold to Chinese at asset level in Zimb). My asshole has only just recovered after the ATO turned it into a butchers bin. (Although for PSC, I was a non resident so didn't pay any tax).

If you have enough in this (and its in your own name) and it pans out how I expect, its probably worth moving to Dubai and playing golf for 2 years in order to get the non tax residency status for Aus...
I seriously hope if there is a deal it’s not like the Leo lithium one and we don’t get the majority paid out as a unfranked dividend.

This would be a terrible result for retail Australian investors who have already been through enough pain. For those in the top tax bracket, losing 48% of any dividend in tax to the ATO would be an absolute kick in the head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 17 users

Hudnut

Regular
Having an unfranky divvy could really suck, depending on your situation.

Assuming an investor is on a highest marginal tax rate is 50% for round numbers:

Example 1 - 100% increase in value from original purchase.
- Cost base is $500K (eg. bought for 50c/share)
- Value of return is $1M. (eg. equivalent of $1/share)

Returned as capital
If $1M returned as capital (shares etc) and sold, CGT discount of 50% on $500K gain is $250K.
Tax paid is $125K and Investor keeps $875K.
Overall profit from original $500K investment is $375K.

Returned as divvy
If $1M returned as divvy, then tax is $500K, and Investor keeps $500K.
No profit on original $500K cost base, and Investor has still has a $500K unrealised capital loss from the unsold and unlisted shares.

Example 2 - 400% increase in value
Even at a cost base of $250K and returned value of $1.25M:
Return as capital would mean tax of $250K and Investor keeps $1M with a $750K profit
Return as divvy would be $625K in tax, Investor keeps $625K with a $375K profit and a $250K unrealised capital loss.

Example 3 - 50% increase in value
At a cost base of $500K and returned value of $750K:
Return as capital would mean tax of $75K and Investor keeps $675K with a $175K profit
Return as divvy would be $375K in tax, Investor keeps $375K with a $125K loss and a $500K unrealised capital loss.

Unless I'm missing something, if you are on the top marginal tax rate (again, using 50% for round numbers) not being able to use your cost base as a deduction when you get the proceeds as a dividend (which is income and not capital gain), means you need to make at least a 100% profit just to break even.

Is this correct?
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
Reactions: 4 users

Hudnut

Regular
Having an unfranky divvy could really suck, depending on your situation.

Assuming an investor is on a highest marginal tax rate is 50% for round numbers:

Example 1 - 100% increase in value from original purchase.
- Cost base is $500K (eg. bought for 50c/share)
- Value of return is $1M. (eg. equivalent of $1/share)

Returned as capital
If $1M returned as capital (shares etc) and sold, CGT discount of 50% on $500K gain is $250K.
Tax paid is $125K and Investor keeps $875K.
Overall profit from original $500K investment is $375K.

Returned as divvy
If $1M returned as divvy, then tax is $500K, and Investor keeps $500K.
No profit on original $500K cost base, and Investor has still has a $500K unrealised capital loss from the unsold and unlisted shares.

Example 2 - 400% increase in value
Even at a cost base of $250K and returned value of $1.25M:
Return as capital would mean tax of $250K and Investor keeps $1M with a $750K profit
Return as divvy would be $625K in tax, Investor keeps $625K with a $375K profit and a $250K unrealised capital loss.

Example 3 - 50% increase in value
At a cost base of $500K and returned value of $750K:
Return as capital would mean tax of $75K and Investor keeps $675K with a $175K profit
Return as divvy would be $375K in tax, Investor keeps $375K with a $125K loss and a $500K unrealised capital loss.

Unless I'm missing something, if you are on the top marginal tax rate (again, using 50% for round numbers) not being able to use your cost base as a deduction when you get the proceeds as a dividend (which is income and not capital gain), means you need to make at least a 100% profit just to break even.

Is this correct?

And if the above is correct and you had an SMSF, wouldn't you be better off selling your personally held unlisted AVZ shares to your SMSF for pennies, so the dividend would be taxed at 15% instead? This would also realise your capital loss in personal tax.
 
  • Thinking
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Ashlee

Regular
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Fire
Reactions: 27 users

JNRB

Regular
An interesting article
Good opportunity for Felix to sacrifice Zijin & Cominniere at the alter to show how non-corrupt he is, and sign a framework for 'responisble' development with USA
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Thinking
Reactions: 13 users

Azzler

Top 20
Having an unfranky divvy could really suck, depending on your situation.

Assuming an investor is on a highest marginal tax rate is 50% for round numbers:

Example 1 - 100% increase in value from original purchase.
- Cost base is $500K (eg. bought for 50c/share)
- Value of return is $1M. (eg. equivalent of $1/share)

Returned as capital
If $1M returned as capital (shares etc) and sold, CGT discount of 50% on $500K gain is $250K.
Tax paid is $125K and Investor keeps $875K.
Overall profit from original $500K investment is $375K.

Returned as divvy
If $1M returned as divvy, then tax is $500K, and Investor keeps $500K.
No profit on original $500K cost base, and Investor has still has a $500K unrealised capital loss from the unsold and unlisted shares.

Example 2 - 400% increase in value
Even at a cost base of $250K and returned value of $1.25M:
Return as capital would mean tax of $250K and Investor keeps $1M with a $750K profit
Return as divvy would be $625K in tax, Investor keeps $625K with a $375K profit and a $250K unrealised capital loss.

Example 3 - 50% increase in value
At a cost base of $500K and returned value of $750K:
Return as capital would mean tax of $75K and Investor keeps $675K with a $175K profit
Return as divvy would be $375K in tax, Investor keeps $375K with a $125K loss and a $500K unrealised capital loss.

Unless I'm missing something, if you are on the top marginal tax rate (again, using 50% for round numbers) not being able to use your cost base as a deduction when you get the proceeds as a dividend (which is income and not capital gain), means you need to make at least a 100% profit just to break even.

Is this correct?
You know it never occurred to me that you wouldn't get to reduce your income with your cost base for a divvy payout, after missing out on the CGT discount, that's just a real kick in the teeth.

However, I suppose going forward, you still get to use that loss to offset future gains, so you don't miss out in the long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Retrobyte

Hates a beer
An interesting article

Send the $8bn straight to us
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Haha
Reactions: 16 users

Azzler

Top 20
An interesting article
Sickening isn't it.
The ruling class in the DRC are some of the most revolting people on earth.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Fire
Reactions: 23 users

Randenj

Regular
An interesting article
So what do you reckon: A Congo someone has started to play 'silly buggers' (again), so an American someone who knows a Swiss someone decided to give their Swiss someone a call and suddenly the Congo someone has an $8bn reason to stop mucking everyone around again?
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
  • Haha
Reactions: 20 users

Exo324

Regular
No one in public office should be able to amass 8bill when their country is stricken by poverty. Sickening.
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 27 users

oxxa23

Regular
Having an unfranky divvy could really suck, depending on your situation.

Assuming an investor is on a highest marginal tax rate is 50% for round numbers:

Example 1 - 100% increase in value from original purchase.
- Cost base is $500K (eg. bought for 50c/share)
- Value of return is $1M. (eg. equivalent of $1/share)

Returned as capital
If $1M returned as capital (shares etc) and sold, CGT discount of 50% on $500K gain is $250K.
Tax paid is $125K and Investor keeps $875K.
Overall profit from original $500K investment is $375K.

Returned as divvy
If $1M returned as divvy, then tax is $500K, and Investor keeps $500K.
No profit on original $500K cost base, and Investor has still has a $500K unrealised capital loss from the unsold and unlisted shares.

Example 2 - 400% increase in value
Even at a cost base of $250K and returned value of $1.25M:
Return as capital would mean tax of $250K and Investor keeps $1M with a $750K profit
Return as divvy would be $625K in tax, Investor keeps $625K with a $375K profit and a $250K unrealised capital loss.

Example 3 - 50% increase in value
At a cost base of $500K and returned value of $750K:
Return as capital would mean tax of $75K and Investor keeps $675K with a $175K profit
Return as divvy would be $375K in tax, Investor keeps $375K with a $125K loss and a $500K unrealised capital loss.

Unless I'm missing something, if you are on the top marginal tax rate (again, using 50% for round numbers) not being able to use your cost base as a deduction when you get the proceeds as a dividend (which is income and not capital gain), means you need to make at least a 100% profit just to break even.

Is this correct?
Your numbers are fine, it's just that the company ordinarily would wind up or do a capital buyback to assist realising the majority of your capital loss.... yo be used against future capital gains..... the tax still sucks for sure but.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

tonster66

Regular
8b on a presidents salary, makes Biden look like an amateur
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 11 users

whales

Regular
Send the $8bn straight to us

So what do you reckon: A Congo someone has started to play 'silly buggers' (again), so an American someone who knows a Swiss someone decided to give their Swiss someone a call and suddenly the Congo someone has an $8bn reason to stop mucking everyone around again?
Security for minerals has just taken on another level.
If he was desperate to stop M23
the incentive to avoid ICC just increased 100 fold.
What a pathetic response " smear campaign "
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 6 users

Spikerama

Regular
Sickening isn't it.
The ruling class in the DRC are some of the most revolting people on earth.

Interesting analogy that only the tip of the iceberg is frozen. :unsure:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Spikerama

Regular
@Frank @JAG

Forty Five. Sharpen those knives.

avz-icsid-final-countdown.netlify.app_ (18).png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Top Bottom