Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts

Saturday, October 15, 2022

Nikola Trump And Special Effects

Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Convicted of Securities Fraud https://www.wsj.com/articles/nikola-founder-trevor-milton-convicted-of-securities-fraud-11665779578


"Among the misrepresentations cited by prosecutors in the trial were Mr. Milton describing an undrivable prototype to a crowd as “fully-functioning” and saying that Nikola was producing hydrogen fuel at a cost of $4 per kilogram when it cost other companies much more. In fact, Nikola wasn’t producing any hydrogen fuel at all, prosecutors said.

Mr. Milton’s lawyers said the Nikola founder acted in good faith and argued that the government had cherry-picked portions of his public statements."


Is this cherry picking?


"It is a distortion to say that Trevor Milton intended to commit fraud,” defense attorney Mr. Mukasey said during his closing argument. He said Mr. Milton’s statements were supported by those around him and cheered on by his leadership team, adding that important facts about Nikola’s business were fully disclosed to investors.  It’s not a crime to use special effects in a commercial,” he said of the Nikola One video. “Otherwise the government would have to indict the Energizer Bunny.” "


What is the line between special effects and blatant lying? Matter of fact, is special effects ok when the purpose is to mislead? Put another way blatant lying can be euphemistically said to be special effects or "alternate reality" as we say in the context of Trump.


“If someone wanted to commit fraud,” he said, “they would do it behind closed doors.” 

This is exactly like what people say about Trump. If a person does something in the open then it cannot be a crime? Putin is conducting a war in Ukraine. And the whole world knows about it. There is no camouflage. So it's not a crime?


Sunday, August 14, 2022

Trump's Modus Operandi And America's Weakness

Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned https://nyti.ms/3w1NTZk


It's not just that Trump lies.

  • His lawyer said to the govt that all sensitive documents had been returned.
  • He then said as president he had the right to convert sensitive documents to non sensitive. (Declassify at will.)
  • He told the press that FBI had probably planted evidence.


And the biggest issue is that the American legal system will allow Trump to say that he himself had no clue what was brought to his house and no clue what his lawyers said to the govt on his behalf and the legal system will want to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to sell the sensitive documents to Russia China Iran North Korea. How can anyone prove it?


Just like he claims that he had no idea what his accounting firm submitted as data to various financial entities. Atleast the Indian income tax says that ignorance is no excuse. We are that much better than Americans.


Trump is narcissistic. He feels entitled. That's why he wanted to win the 2nd term badly. With the weight of the presidency working for him and with his ability to redefine what executive privilege meant he would literally have been King.


Additional reading:

Saturday, May 1, 2021

People In Glass Houses

 


""Oxygen plants are essential. It is irresponsible not to have them," the bench said." - India Today: Batra Hospital runs out of oxygen, 8 patients die before Delhi govt rushes supply."

https://www.indiatoday.in/cities/delhi/story/batra-hospital-runs-out-of-oxygen-8-covid-patients-die-1796959-2021-05-01


Of late, high courts and supreme court have been castigating various entities like the election commission (for allowing political rallies during the pandemic), Delhi administration and Central Government for having Oxygen shortage. 

(https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-lets-try-and-not-be-a-cry-baby-centre-to-delhi-on-oxygen-crisis-amid-covid-19-2421034)


What surprises is me the performance of the courts themselves. The number of cases pending and the rate of disposal of cases (I am not talking about the correctness of judgments) leaves a lot to be desired. Couple of my friends have filed divorce cases and these are running for more than a year and these are cases where the wife hasn't asked for alimony, child support. I attended one virtual court hearing where the judge gave new dates for EACH case because she was at home and no paperwork was available with her lordship. 


Just great.


Shouldn't the courts fix their own problems first.


Additional reading 

https://www.bloombergquint.com/coronavirus-outbreak/dont-clamp-down-on-citizen-voices-justice-chandrachud-warns-states





Saturday, April 10, 2021

India And Scandinavia

The difference between an advanced country and a third world country is that the former is rule bound while the latter is negotiation bound. For example in countries like India and Pakistan, things get done based on who knows who. A typical example is how FATF recommendations are implemented in Pakistan. Knee-jerk actions are taken by the government just before FATF meeting is to take place instead of planned regular actions in the true spirit of eliminating terrorism and terror financing.


In countries like New Zealand, Sweden things are rule bound largely. Rules are clear and implemented well with little deviation.


What about Saudi (KSA)? Which group does it belong to? It is rule bound. Is it hence an advanced country? Not really. An advanced country has another attribute, it's relatively free. The list of things that are illegal will be minimal. Saudi obviously doesn't fit into this category. While every country has a dominant religion (Hinduism in India, Christianity in Italy, Judaism in Israel for example), when the judicial laws are derived from religious considerations rather than from civil ones, we end up having a state that is not free. When we try to drive the answer to a problem from religious texts rather than from rational considerations, we end up traveling a suboptimal path to mediocrity. Religion, like lingerie, should be limited to the bedroom. It should not be bandied about in public.

Here is a question to the reader: If Shariat law were to be implemented in Norway, how will Norway be after 10 years? On top of the world (I don't mean geographically)? Replace Shariat law with any other religious law and combine it with religious fervor - the result would be the same. 

The same thing would happen if the guiding book were to be any other religious treatise.

If we surrender reason to obey what's mentioned in a book, we do it because we are mentally weak (we don't have reasoning ability) or we are emotionally weak (we find it easier to fast for a month or donate our hair or make a trip to Vaishnodevi or Jerusalem or Mecca) than work rationally towards the problem.

It's interesting to see how the advanced country which gives so much freedom to its people also effectively implements rules. 


And it's sad to see third world countries, on the other hand, curb freedom and are haphazard in implementing rules. Pakistan is a good example, to a smaller extent so is India.


What is China? It's again like Saudi.- Very little freedom given and no democracy. India is heading towards what Pakistan and China are instead of towards Scandinavia and UK.


What is the route like to go from being a third world country to ask advanced country?

How does India get to become like Scandinavia? 


Good questions.


Religion / Faith / Networking (RFN) aren't alternatives to good processes. Where they are treated to be substitutes for processes, we are well on our way to becoming a third world country. The more we remove RFN from our nation, the faster we head towards New Zealand.


Additional reading:

https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/the-country-s-problem-is-its-romance-with-informality-11619366101367.html Excellent 

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Divorce, Yet No Separation

Why would a man want to divorce his wife of many years but still want to continue his life with her just as before - living in the same house. And that no one is to know of their divorce.

Everything will be the same except that they are now legally not married. 

Background:
The man has an estranged first wife with whom he had a son and with whom also he is estranged. The man's inlaws (from 2nd wife) never accepted him as their son in law in all these years.

Possible Reasons:
  1. Maybe because the man was touchy about his inlaws never accepting him but his wife continued to maintain good relations with her own family. And the divorce is a way of punishing the wife.
  2. Maybe he can tell his son that he is no more married and hence request the son to accept him and come back to his life.
  3. Maybe there is some property that would come to him or some business / legal deal that would come through only if he wasn't married (at all or atleast to his current wife). 
  4. Maybe someone challenged the man that he was not man enough and could not divorce his wife. Just a "fun" thing to prove that he could do anything if he set out to.
  5. Maybe the man is in love with another married woman and that woman insisted that he get divorced first and only then would she file a case against her husband.
  6. The wife has committed some crime or misdemeanor (which the husband knows about) and which may impact his business / social / legal standing if he is married to her. (For example, if there is an application form that he has to fill which has the question "Are you or any family member ever...?") Another variety of this is if he had got his wife to committ a crime and he wants now to distance himself from the crime. "It was she who did it. And she isn't related to me."
  7. She doesn't give me BJ's. (Men being men even this could trigger huge anger.)

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Molesting Isn't A Crime

Continuing from my earlier post on  "reason" / "why", I thought that at times we exonerate someone because a reason was not found for their (wrong) action. Because of an absence of explicit intent, the wrong act isn't punished as in the case of the judge's ruling in the case of Asians against Harvard admissions. Read the link below:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-determines-harvard-s-race-conscious-admissions-policy-is-constitutional-11569958184

In other cases, we exonerate a wrong act because there was a reason. "He came late because there was a traffic jam on the way" or "she couldn't deliver the project because her grandmother was in the hospital". 

The social reason given is basically to remove any trace of any material intent for the wrong doing and hence to give a clean chit to the party that didn't do the right thing.

Either the presence of a reason or it's absence could be used to exonerate someone. The insidious thing is that this is used not consistently across all occasions and all peoples.

Maybe the pedophile who molested your baby was just trying to learn biology. We really don't know why he was molesting, right?

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Justice Metrics


I am surprised that a judge feels awful that there justice is getting delayed. It's quite difficult to feel empathy for your customer when you are a service provider. The judge is amazing.

What would be the statistics for India? Who is worried about the crores of cases pending in various courts in India for years, (sometimes more than 10 years)?

How i wish that justice was not delayed?

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Mulling Over Mueller

This post was written after Barr submitted a brief summary of Mueller report. 

After the Mueller report is published, it's like recovering the CVR after a plane crash - a whole lot of data and a lot of opinions from every side.

But what exactly do these opinions mean? Which one is right? Are they all right?

WP and NYT as usual are speaking against Trump and Barr. WSJ is speaking for Barr.

Here is a sample of articles published after the report.


  • What is the big deal about his tax report? It's likely he would have fudged and cheated? What does it prove? How does it help?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/23/wall-concealment-trump-built-around-his-finances-is-beginning-crumble/


https://wapo.st/2QB3jgV

The (US) laws that exist today only show that they are inadequate to apply to a character like Mr Trump. An important question in this regard is: What would the Republicans had felt about Mr Trump if he had been a non-Republican? And what would Democrats have felt if he had been a non-Democrat?

If Trump can be manipulated by Russia to do things that are adverse to USA, is he appropriate for his position?

If social media, in its current Avatar, is detrimental to US interests, is it appropriate to have?
If drugs are adverse to a country's interests should they be allowed?

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Trumping Mueller And Eliott

For Trump and the System, a Turning Point and a Test.

Now that the report has come out there is a lot of speculation on what it will contain, what the AG Mr Barr will release, what the Congress will do and how Trump may be affected. Only time will answer these questions.

In the meanwhile, we know that whatever the special counsel Robert Mueller has found has resulted in convictions. He may not have found anything that will result in impeachment though it may be a close call. Nothing substantially new may come out. What the attorney general will release is in his discretion.

Trump will lie his way through. And probably scrape through. In a few months this may fizzle out.  And that, if it happens, is sad for the US.  That someone can get away with this is painful. 
Executive power seems to be unimpeachable. Who will guard the guards. Rather who can? Is there hope for a Ness like finale?

Here we go in forward chronological order:

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Legislative, Executive And Judiciary

I read this today:
Access to Mueller’s report and evidence may be guided by Congress, Clinton email case

Then I read about the Legislative (L), Executive (E) and Judiciary (J) here.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-legislature-executive-and-judiciary This link explains the roles of the three functions: the legislative, the executive and the Judiciary in the context of a country.

Now let's consider a person instead of a country or an organization.

A person also has the three roles inside them. There is the L which consists of the rules that they espouse. The E which is the way he acts which may or may not be largely in line with the L. I am talking about a person whose rules as they profess are out of sync with their actions. 

The L could consist of rules such as "I am honest", "I like to help people", "I am courageous" etc. The E could do things which are often at variance with the professed rules. 

My question is: How does such a person manage that conflict? Is there a J that operates in that person which strives to remedy this conflict?

What will cause the J to be involved when the E and L in a person diverge? Maybe a friend points out this issue. Maybe the person realizes himself while introspecting.

If such a Judiciary were to exist in a person, it would adjudicate that conflict and decide in favor of either the Legislative or the Executive. If the E wins, then the E perhaps might let it go or might have to change its rules or laws to be more in sync with the action. If the L wins, then the E might realize that it had better follow the L better henceforth. 

If such conflicts are unresolved, in the worst case, the E and L would continue to be divergent with the person either at peace with the state of affairs or be troubled.

Considering that E, L, J are all embedded in the same person, maybe they are not strictly independent of each other. There is considerable overlap of all the three. The one that is in charge is the E. The action is not always decided based on one's rules as professed. Invoking the J is always unpleasant to the E because the trigger for that invocation is because the E has violated the E, in the first place - which itself is very difficult for a person to acknowledge. 

J is what is commonly referred to as our conscience. For some people this is strong. In such a case, the J can kill a person by constantly bullying them for having violated their own L. 

Where it's weak, a person is largely run by an E with the L serving as just a mouthpiece and the J largely absent. The absence of J leads to extraordinary (could be good or bad) behavior. In a person, a J cannot be forced to exist. At least I am not sure how. 

But in an organization or a country, a J can be inculcated. The murder of Khashoggi in Turkey by Saudis is an indication of the absence of a J or of the absence of an appropriate L. The presence of a strong E and J is indicative of a good environment.

A classic example of men's J not being at work is brought out by the author here: It’s Not That Men Don’t Know What Consent Is https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/sunday/sexual-consent-college.html. The L in men understands consent from the woman is needed, the E kinda disregards it while the J just takes a nap. 

Of course women are equally at fault when they coerce men to do something (usually something other than sex, maybe related to shopping, vacations, activities for children) and there the rule of consent is not as strictly enforced. Because such violations of a non-sexual nature aren't deemed criminal or even important. Coercion (nonsexual) is more often perpetrated by feminine persons.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Reel Estate

There was some talk about demolition of a building with 12 apartments, each of 868 sq ft. The plot area is 3 grounds = 7200 sq ft. The current FSI (Floor Space Index = ratio of total area of all flats to the plot area is currently 1.5. FSI can go up to a maximum of 2.0. This raised the topic of whether the old building could be demolished and new flats constructed. A friend of mine contacted me with the details. I responded with real estate calculations:

Quick back of the envelope calculation:
Currently we have 3 grounds =7200 sq ft.
Total flat area = 12* 868= 10400 sq ft
FSI currently = 10400 / 7200=1.45

With FSI =2, builder can construct total 2*7200=14400sqft
Meaning 14400-10400=3600 extra sq ft.

Assume Rs20000/sq ft rate as the price for a new flat.
Assume  the cost of construction, including demolition, of 14400 sq ft = Rs3000 / sq ft. Total cost for builder =14400*3000=4.3 crore.

Assuming each of us wont have to shell out any money for getting a new flat, the builder needs to recoup at least his total cost of construction = Rs4.3 crore. This means he has to get 4.3crore/20000(rate of new flat per sq ft)= min 2100 sq ft out of the extra 3600 sq ft that we get from new FSI =2.

This means the 12 of us together get 3600-2100=1500 sq ft. 

Which is 1500/12 = 125 sq ft each in the new flat. In essence we will get rid of a 868 sq ft 30 years old flat to get a new 1000sq ft max flat assuming we don't pay extra cash. 

Of course the rates i mentioned are approx. You may use different or more realistic rates for cost of demolition + construction and price per sq ft new flat. But ballpark seems to be about 125 sq ft extra for each us. 
(125 sqft is the max we can get. Builder will need some profit margin. 125 sq ft assumed that the margin was zero.).

Consider also the intangible cost of moving some place else until new flat is ready. I am not sure what the LTCG tax implication would be even if there is no net money receipt. Maybe because the gains are "reinvested" in the new flat there may not be any. 

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

King Of PTP

This post is about my friend, let's call him EM1, and about incidents that happened in the last two months concerning him and me.

The first event concerns a public tender process (PTP).
My friend and I were discussing the process to follow for getting buildings painted.

He often says that he is aware of how things are done but that I don't. He strongly felt that we had to follow a public tender process (PTP) while soliciting proposals from contractors. And he objected to my thought that we could just go ahead and get proposals from 3 different contractors without going through a formal public tender.

The following is the message he sent to me on Jul 24, 2018 reproduced here.

This is regarding  external painting and civil  repairs.  It is  advisable  to follow  the public  tender process. We should  specify the type of work,  materials to be used such as Dr Fix It Nu coat to be used with cement mixtures for filling cracks Asian grade emulsion add synthetic paint to be used after cleaning the walls with sand paper and water washing with  the help of scaffolding.  One coat of primer and two coats  of  emulsion to be specified.  E M D to be paid  by the contractor of 10%min. Also validity  of the contract and  jurisdiction  for any legal disputes.  If the above  guidelines are followed  we can be sure of good results.

I asked him if this PTP (public tender) process was what was followed in the past in our buildings and whether he could show me the tender and the responses. 
He shot back saying he wasn't my servant and he wasn't required to show such proof. Then i asked him how he proposed to go through the PTP now that we had already got the quotations from different vendors. Or should we disregard the proposals start afresh with the PTP. 

He replied that we could write up a tender document and post it outside our buildings - like we see 2ft by 1ft boards advertising for Hathway or Airtel broadbands services. And he added that whoever saw it was welcome to act upon it and submit a proposal.

So THIS was what he meant when he insisted on a PTP in one of our meetings I asked my friend whether this wasn't an eyewash. He and few other friends (UU3 and EF4 - I do have a penchant for giving offbeat names) confirmed that this was perfectly legitimate and this is what we ought to do.

Other instances of his strange behavior come to mind.


In another instance he quoted my stance on sewage pipe replacement completely incorrectly and sent me another note.

This is with reference to your message on items of expenditure  without any priority.  I will  ensure we get back  our old office space as per our letter to state government before this month end.  We should  then call for a committee meeting to set our priorities that  fits our Budget. In my opinion we should  first do the civil repairs to sun shades and also external wall cracks if any by Oct 18. External  painting to be taken up by Jan 19. Our present financial position will permit only this much.  Even to do this we should  call for EGM restricted to the above.  Then form a subcommittee  to start the Tender process  for this work.  After creating some reserves we should  plan for the rest.  Taking  up sewerage pipe relaying is ruled out now as it will cost 40lakhs which  the Assn can not afford. The matter  has been  discussed at several GB when it was decided  that  it should  be done along with reconstruction of our land space into a bigger flat for all owners.  Somebody is misleading the President  about  sewerage  pipe relaying  with an ulterior motive. I am totally against such  a proposal at the cost of Association.  The first two as outlined above  are not only within our means but also an urgent priority. Let  us discuss  in our committee meeting  first  to gain strength to our arguments.

People who had been following my messages would have had a different thing to say about my stand on sewage pipe replacement. They may also realize that the priority that my friend, who incidentally quit The group messaging platform, is talking about is the same as what the group had agreed on. This is a typical example of my friends ranting with a wrong data.
The office space he referred to and taken responsibility for is yet to come as on 23rd Aug 2018. On Aug 11th, my friend mentioned that it will take more time to get the office, that he can't commit to a date and getting an alternate office built was not a priority. And that we could wait until the state government responded favorably.

Couple of months back he and another buddy (UU3) of his insisted that the President of the meeting had to minute the meeting and that it had to be done on paper, not done electronically. Both swore the bylaws that the minutes had to be done that way. Another gentleman (EF4) intervened and agreed to have things printed out if the necessary stuff was emailed to him by the President. 


In another instance around Aug 9th, my friend had suggested that we invite a property tax official so that we could get clarification on the self declaration form to be filled. I had suggested that only 5 people attend informally and the information could be disseminated to all others later. Subsequently my friend called me to say we have to make arrangements for 25 people to attend which would have cost some money. I said no. What was the need for 25 people to attend and why change what we agreed to earlier. My friend went ahead and made the arrangements by himself and incurred the additional expense with the cooperation of UU3 and EF4. What additional benefit did the extra cost result in?


This friend is often inconsistent in what he says, incorrect in what he says and forceful. (Read http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/07/pf-gratuity-cheque-payment.html - a nice account showing his thinking.)


Once he told me that if i didn't do what he said, he will not only make sure that nothing moved forward but also that things move backward. Another time he will go to any extent to get what he wanted done - even if it meant murdering me. I disregarded all this as being his typical tantrums and empty talk. 

What makes me curious is: what's driving him to this behavior? He constantly threatens, throws tantrums (A. wanting to change the security agency ostensibly because milk packets and petrol from his bike were being stolen and B. that I personally ostracize a mutual acquaintance because he hated her) and wants special treatment, twists facts, recollects facts incorrectly. What really pisses him off is when he is asked to substantiate his claims or opinions. 


One of his claims was that if income tax was not filed by the deadline, the penalty would be Rs 5000 per day. UU3 and EF4 looking on without disputing this outrageous claim. That's when I realized UU3 and EF4, nice gentlemen by themselves, had taken leave of their senses when in the company of my friend.


The last two months were strange with my friend's destructive behavior with no else to recognize it for what it meant. I consulted a couple of elderly gentleman who had known of my friend for decades. One of them said "he tends to talk too much, 10% of what he says usually is sensible. And he tends to disrupt things." The other gentleman refused to comment except that he has generally avoided my friend in all these decades.

The pathological lies, the grandiose sense of self (the number of times he promised that we would get the office in the next 2 or 3 or 5 days), the way he treated lesser people, his sense of entitlement, his abusive nature, his wrath when asked to substantiate his claims. 

I am reminded of NPD. The last two months felt unreal, with UU3 actively supporting my friend and working n his behalf. And EF4 perhaps unwittingly colluded with my friend. 

All the events mentioned happened as mentioned and hopefully deviate little from facts. Opinions mentioned are strictly mine, which could be incorrect.

Additional Reading

  1. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm
  2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201510/14-signs-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation

Thursday, July 12, 2018

PF, Gratuity, Cheque Payment

Today I had a discussion with a friend about making payments to people such as sweepers, electricians. They are currently paid in cash and I suggested that they henceforth open a bank account so cash can be avoided.

My friend countered and said that bank payment will cause problems 1. because the persons being paid are illiterate and hence can't use ATM and 2. This will involve having to pay PF, pension, gratuity etc. And that Labor Welfare Act would be in their favor.

Message he sent on Jul 12, 2018
I understand  that  you  want all our staff should open a bank account to receive  their salaries etc.  While  it is  good thinking  that all should  have bank account      we should  bear in mind that most of them cannot read and write except  in Telugu and their banking  transactions particularly ATM are at a risk.   We are also liable to pay them all compensations such as PF Pension Gratuity and other severance costs in case of removal from service as per Labour Welfare Act and the law is in their favour. Taking  all the above  into account  we have been making all salary payments all these years in cash.   Another  mutual friend (UU3) is much aware of this. Hence you will be well advised not to  deviate from established  conventions in our own interests

I may also add here that as an employer  we should  make  them contribute from their income towards  Pradhan Mantra Insurance  scheme  of Re1 per month that gives them coverage of Rs 1lakh per annum per member.

I told my friend that regular cash payments made to these people from our account and when the account is audited how would one explain the expenses? Wouldn't the same PF etc liability arise? If the payments were made from an account that wasn't audited then it's a different issue. Plus the fact that there are only 5 people being paid and PF etc arise only when 10 or more people are employed. The place we were discussing had 5 such electricians and sweepers.

And I continued that first one needed to understand whether the people being paid were employed or just causal labor. 

My friend answered that they were contract workers and not employees. That broughy up an even more interesting question. Since when is PF pension etc applicable to non-employees (there being less than 10 such people working is another relevant point).

Since they are transient labor, having Aadhaar card from a different city, getting a local proof of address to open a bank account is another issue which was a bottleneck towards their opening a bank account.

Another friend suggested a solution which was to give a cheque in their name which they can encash without opening an account. Great.

Now the question was: why did my first friend raise the issue about PF, Labor Welfare Act etc when he knew that the 5 people concerned were not employees. Why did he bring up employee benefits issue when the question was only about shifting to bank payment.

Was it because:
  1. He prefers cash and avoids bank transactions wherever he can.
  2. Hates change in status quo. Currently those fellows are being paid in cash.
  3. He thought use of keywords such as PF Labor act will give credibility to his ideas?

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Different Point Of View - Returns

I had earlier mentioned about different points of view regarding the same incident http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/03/different-points-of-view.html

Here is one more episode.
A few days back I met a friend who handles the legal function of a non profit organization (NPO). She told me that the said organization had not been filing income tax (IT) returns, that they had only been circulating an auditor's audited copy to stake holders. 

And that her auditor had recommended that the NPO ought to file returns. When I asked her then why the NPO had not filed IT returns, she had no idea why the previous head of Finance / Legal hadn't done it and that she had only recently taken over. A mutual friend, who himself is a Chartered Accountant, confirmed that the right thing to do was to file the returns.

Today when I spoke with her and asked her whether she was going to file the ITR, she said it was upto the stakeholders of the NPO to decide  whether to file or not to file. 

When I asked her what the right thing to do was, she told me that she has to get a consensus and that her auditor had in fact asked her to get a consensus / decision from the stakeholders as to whether to file IT returns or just circulate an audited copy of the accounts. I inferred that the issue in front of her now was not one of what the right thing to do was but to do what the consensus wanted. Which was very different from what she conveyed to me few days back - a complaint about the state of affairs in the NPO.

And finally she explained to me that she had said all this to me during our previous conversation. 

Jai Ho.

I am planning to record all conversations hereafter. 

Additional Reading:
Trump Reverses Tack on Russian Meddling https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-reverses-tack-on-election-meddling-1531869255: Did Russia meddle or not? It depends on which answer is more useful.

Popular Posts

Featured Post

Being In Someone's Shoes

I am back here after a long break. Many things happened in those years. I have changed a little i guess in those years. Maybe I will write a...