08-15-2009, 11:42 PM
Dear,
We try not to take it personally and we try to feel it may be with some positive intent from you as well. However, the comments given are also not personal and have their links with the objective of this forum and the point being discussed.
We also believe that RRS transfer is the major and focal thing. But we believe RRS transfer has to be identified through some corroborative evidence and does not necessarily entail actual transfer of title at the end of lease term.
The so-called "fools" have provided the way out to decide whether or not RRS has been transferred and have also explained what the heKK this RRS in fact is.
Paragraph 14 also explains why transfer of title for LAND at the end of lease term is necessary. It no where states that transfer of title is a basic for all finance lease arrangements. In fact, this explanation elaborates that transfer of title in case of other assets is not vital.
If you believe that RRS only transfers if
-asset is compulsorily acquired at the end of lease term and title be transferred; or
-100 percent of useful life has beeen consumed during lease term and only a crap is returned after lease term;
then, as I said earlier, we cannot help you.
You are discussing repeatedly the transfer of RRS (of course which is a basic) and continuously failing to understand how such a transfer will be deemed to have taken place and evidenced in the backdrop of a leasing arrangement.
Can we know a logical reasoning of why RRS has not been transferred in the first example of this thread as per your viewpoint? You are saying RRS has not been transferred but not straight forwardly letting us know why it has not been transferred. In this regard I must request you to keep in mind what this RRS actually is.
I hope you will not repeat the two point agenda which I said makes us helpless in making you understand what substance over form in fact means. Do you in fact know what substance over form means. I will like to know your views if you can spare some time.
Regards,
KAMRAN.
We try not to take it personally and we try to feel it may be with some positive intent from you as well. However, the comments given are also not personal and have their links with the objective of this forum and the point being discussed.
We also believe that RRS transfer is the major and focal thing. But we believe RRS transfer has to be identified through some corroborative evidence and does not necessarily entail actual transfer of title at the end of lease term.
The so-called "fools" have provided the way out to decide whether or not RRS has been transferred and have also explained what the heKK this RRS in fact is.
Paragraph 14 also explains why transfer of title for LAND at the end of lease term is necessary. It no where states that transfer of title is a basic for all finance lease arrangements. In fact, this explanation elaborates that transfer of title in case of other assets is not vital.
If you believe that RRS only transfers if
-asset is compulsorily acquired at the end of lease term and title be transferred; or
-100 percent of useful life has beeen consumed during lease term and only a crap is returned after lease term;
then, as I said earlier, we cannot help you.
You are discussing repeatedly the transfer of RRS (of course which is a basic) and continuously failing to understand how such a transfer will be deemed to have taken place and evidenced in the backdrop of a leasing arrangement.
Can we know a logical reasoning of why RRS has not been transferred in the first example of this thread as per your viewpoint? You are saying RRS has not been transferred but not straight forwardly letting us know why it has not been transferred. In this regard I must request you to keep in mind what this RRS actually is.
I hope you will not repeat the two point agenda which I said makes us helpless in making you understand what substance over form in fact means. Do you in fact know what substance over form means. I will like to know your views if you can spare some time.
Regards,
KAMRAN.
