Share this content

Trading stock

Trading stock

My client received some goods as a gift. He later used these goods as trading stock when he started his own business as a sole trader. For accounting and taxation purposes, can he allocate a cost to the goods as though he had purchased them at market value or should he show them at nil cost and increase his profits and tax liability?


Please login or register to join the discussion.

25th Jan 2013 23:13

Quite simple this one.  For

Quite simple this one.  For both accounting and tax purposes bring in at market value.  Without knowing what sort of goods are involved, or the value etc, difficult to comment further, but please write again if my reply is insufficient for you.

Thanks (1)
26th Jan 2013 10:51

Mmm ...

So, if the client receives goods for nothing and then transfers them to his business at market value, hasn't he made a taxable profit as an individual which should be disclosed on his tax return along with his (reduced) business profits?  It would be easier to transfer the goods into the business at cost (nil) and make the profit in the business.

Thanks (0)
26th Jan 2013 11:21


But that's what section 172C ITTOIA 2005 says you have to do; introduce it at market value.  

Since in his capacity as a private individual, the trader isn't trading in the goods concerned, the gain he realises on transferring the goods to the business doesn't have the character of income; he's made a capital gain, quite likely within the chattels exemption.

The tins of baked beans in my pantry are my personal chattels, but if they're introduced to my grocery business, they become stock of the grocery business at there then market value and I've made a capital gain or loss on them, that I'm sure would fall within the chattels exemption, apart, perhaps, from my tin of 1944 spicy baked beans, that may have some antique value!

Your suggested method, probably brings about an unnecessary tax liability.

Thanks (2)
26th Jan 2013 14:05

Oh dear, Euan !  Mr.Attazder

Oh dear, Euan !  Mr.Attazder is right that the "gain" is not subject to Income Tax. He is wrong that it is subject potentially to CGT ( hence the chattels exemption is inapplicable).   He has NOT made a taxable profit as an individual at all - the item had a value upon receipt as a gift.  If it has the same value when it is transferred to the business, then there is no profit or gain at all, so neither CGT nor !/T apply.   

I despair at the necessity of the question ( albeit without knowing the qualification(s) of StephenM, perhaps I should not be too harsh, but if he is qualified, sorry but this is basic stuff).  As for Euan, oh dear oh dear, that really is a very poor reply ( the concept of having a choice as to the value to use, so as to  shift a profit from sector to another, makes it even worse !).

As for Mr. Attazder, NO CGT ( again basic stuff). 

You are all misunderstanding SIMPLE points about taxation.   I despair.

Thanks (1)
26th Jan 2013 14:12

On what...

... do you base your assumption that the value at the time of gift is the same as the value on transfer?

The value of things can go up and down.

Basic stuff!

Thanks (2)
26th Jan 2013 14:26



In your first answer you said bring it in at market value. In your second answer you are now saying that it has nil value because it was originally a gift. The market value of an item is not based on its provenance so clearly these two figures must be different. If you are going to accuse others of poor answers and lack of knowledge, at least be clear on your own position.

I am with George on this one. The treatment makes sense and this would also seem to give the best result from a tax point of view.

Thanks (3)
26th Jan 2013 18:46

@stepurhan.  You have

@stepurhan.  You have misunderstood what I have said.  I did NOT say the goods now have a nil value, so there was NO contradiction of my earlier answer.   My position was, and remains, crystal clear. 

@ Mr. Attazder.  NO, I have NOT based my assumption on the hypothesis surmised by you, so your comments are also put of order.   The word in my second post which you overlook      ( CRUCIALLY ) was the tiny word "If" ! - in the interests of simplicity I assumed an example case ( hence the word "If") where there was no increase in value between the date of the gift and the date of transfer into the business. The position would be different IF there WAS a change in value between the two aforementioned dates.  I believe you  MAY have confused yourself by not understanding the original question by Stephen M ( I am trying to find excuses for you ! )-  you say  "he's made a capital gain" just because the proceeds exceeded the market value at the date of the gift -  NO ! NO !  - the only potential gain is from the date of the gift to the date of introduction of the goods into the business ( Stephen M's question was silent on any change in value between those dates !)

To explain to both of you, and I repeat that the matter is indeed just as simple as I have said, and my despair at the earlier answers entirely justified. Perhaps I can explain by example :- 

Goods received as gift 1/1/2011-  market value £1000.

Market value of goods 30/6/2012 when introduced into the business - £2500.

Goods sold 1/1/2013 for £3000.

The answer is this -

(1) Capital Gain 1/1/2011 to 30/6/12.  £1500( £2500 less £1000) - potentially chattels exemption for CGT available.

(2) Trading profit on sale of goods £500( £3000 less £2500) included in the overall trading profit per the Accounts of the business, of course.

The £2500 will be shown in the Accounts effectively as "Purchases" ( albeit " goods introduced by proprietor" or similar would be more appropriate wording) ; and the £3000 will be included in Sales.

THERE ARE NO OTHER WAYS OF CORRECTLY TREATING THE TRANSACTIONS, PER MY EXAMPLE, either in terms of accounting requirements or taxation treatment.

With respect to both of you, and recognising that part of Mr. Attazder's inaccurate response is due probably to to his not understanding that for simplicity I used an example in which there was no increase or decrease in value between the date of gift and date of introduction into the business, the position to reaffirm IS SIMPLE - any other accounting or taxation treatment is INCORRECT, and there are no OPTIONS available.  

I repeat my despair : my previous replies were correct in every respect - I am sorry to have to be so blunt, but I am disappointed at the other contributors' lack of knowledge of SIMPLE concepts.          




Thanks (1)
27th Jan 2013 09:24

Oh I see!

Because the OP didn't say that there was any change in value between the date of the gift and the date of the transfer, the correct thing to do is to respond with the assumption that there wasn't one.

Thank you for putting me straight.

Thanks (3)
27th Jan 2013 11:41

   With great respect, Mr.

   With great respect, Mr. Atazder, we are, or certainly should be, trying to help Stephen M who is clearly inexperienced.   The sarcasm in your last contribution is an embarrassment to you.   I could not have explained your error more clearly - I did NOT ( as you falsely contend) base my earlier reply on the " ASSUMPTION ( emphasis added) that there wasn't"  an increase in value between the gift and the introduction of the goods into the business.   It is really all down to your misinterpreting the words "IF (emphasis added) it has the same value when it is transferred.  If I had instead written "AS it HAD the same value when it WAS transferred" then your attempted criticism would have been in order  - I chose my words carefully, however and you have simply misinterpreted them  - having explained it once, I was entitled to expect an acknowledgment that you had misinterpreted my comments.   Clearly you are determined not to give way.  I reaffirm that all my posts have been correct. If you would kindly accept that, in relation to the example in my post at 18.46 on 26/1/2013, I have given Stephen M a CORRECT full response to the accounting and taxation treatment, this will hopefully give him the comfort of knowing how to treat his own particular case ( which is what you should be doing, not engaging in failed attempts at point-scoring) - if , Mr. Atazder, you are disinclined to provide that acceptance, may I ask Stephen M to contact me direct if he is still in any doubt ( in the interests of all concerned).


To reaffirm everyone, this REALLY is a VERY SIMPLE matter ( despite the attempts in some quarters at obfuscation).

Thanks (1)
27th Jan 2013 13:34


Your criticism of George is unwarranted - and incorrect. You place great emphasis on the word 'if' - it is indeed correct that 'if' the value at date of gift were the same as the value at date of transfer there would have been no profit in the individual's hands. However, before that statement you made an unqualified statement that George was wrong. You also made an unqualified statement that the individual has NOT (your emphasis) made a taxable profit. Your subsequent sentence about there being no profit if the two values were equal is correct, but stands on its own, ie it is a non-sequitur as far as your two previous comments are concerned.

If there was any misinterpretation of your words it is because they were carelessly chosen. What you ought to have started off by saying was that George would be correct only if there was an uplift in value between gift and transfer. But you categorically said that he was wrong - period. It is you that owes George an apology for sloppy drafting of your comment.

Thanks (4)
27th Jan 2013 21:09

@BKD.   I reaffirm my

@BKD.   I reaffirm my previous comments.   Your overlook the key factor.  In Mr. Attazder's initial response ( see his paragraph commencing "Since") he clearly stated that there HAD BEEN a capital gain between gift and transfer( impliedly IRRESPECTIVE, I repeat with respect, BKD, IRRESPECTIVE) of the respective values : that was the comment which was palpably WRONG ( and self-evidently so since the initial question did not indicate the values on the date of gift and the date of transfer).   To say that something DEFINITELY HAS happened, when you know only that it might possibly have happened, makes it "wrong".   

Your second incorrect contention, and its being entirely invalid,  flows from the same initial post from Mr. Attazder - by this I mean that implicit in Mr. Attazder's ( albeit wrong as explained above) statement that there was a "gain" ( between the first two events) is that there was NO OTHER GAIN ( otherwise HE would have mentioned that there would then be a potential profit, or indeed loss, between the second and third events) - to repeat, I was basing my comment on MR. ATTAZDER'S  aforementioned implied assumption.     DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND PLEASE ?

The fact that you fail to admit  Mr. Attazder's initial error, as explained in my first paragraph above, in your contribution, says it all.   If you had admitted it, then I would perhaps have been more sympathetic to you in my further comments.    I do not know whether your post is intended to be taken seriously, but as you can see there is absolutely no question of an apology from myself - the apology should have come from Mr. Attazder, and it now behoves you to withdraw your comments.  

HOWEVER, as I have stated above, the important matter is that we help Stephen M, not engage in pointless sabre-rattling.   Given that you have ( albeit ineptly) taken up the cudgels on behalf of Mr. Attazder, I feel that you were obliged to accept ( on his behalf) the closing request in my last post to state categorically whether the EXAMPLE which I gave in my last post was correct or not.     I am sure that Stephen M would benefit greatly from knowing that you, BKD, do agree with my figures - and perhaps if he reads this, Mr. Attazder would kindly also confirm my figures, AGAIN TO HOPEFULLY FULFIL OUR COMMON AIM TO HELP STEPHEN M ( to whom I repeat my invitation to contact me direct as this would be more productive for him than having to read unsavoury posts).

Thanks (1)
27th Jan 2013 22:19


Two wrongs do not make a right.

George obviously made an assumption (a reasonable, and obvious, one in my view) that there may have been an increase in value between gift and transfer. I agree that it would have been better if he had stated that assumption, although it was so obvious to everyone - apart from one, it would seem - that it wasn't necessary. In any event, that does not give you the right to make the unqualified, categorical, statement that he is wrong. As such, you still owe George an apology for failing to qualify your accusation that he was wrong. (Though it is clear from the tenor of your words that no such apology will be forthcoming.)

Why would George have mentioned a futher gain or loss? He was merely answering the OP's question, which was about the value to be attributed on transfer of the asset to the business. Future profits or losses on sale are wholly irrelevant to that question. Therefore, saying that a failure to refer to subsequent gain or loss is to imply that there is no such further gain or loss is an alarming misinterpretation on your part.

For the avoidance of doubt, I fully understand what George was saying. You clearly do not, and it seems that you do not fully understand what you are saying yourself:-

You said "He has NOT made a taxable profit as an individual at all". There is no qualification in that statement and the emphasis on NOT imputes further certainty into your words.

You then go on to say "To say that something DEFINITELY HAS happened, when you know only that it might possibly have happened, makes it "wrong"".  I will take that as an admission that you were wrong. Thank you.


Thanks (3)
27th Jan 2013 23:15

 The closing paragraph of BKD

 The closing paragraph of BKD's last contribution was  banal and disingenuous, and as untrue as the remainder of his post, consistent with his previous contribution.  It starts with a disingenuous attempt to justify an assumption which was by no means "obvious" ( the gratuitous abuse in the remainder of that sentence is noted with despair).  

 There is no improvement in the remainder of the post.


Mr. Attazder and BKW, just please look again at my original succinct reply to the question.  The problems thereafter have arisen from Mr. Attazder's wholly INACCURATE reference to a capital gain - there was NO CAPITAL GAIN implicit or explicit in the question.  Unprofessional, inaccurate and disrespectful contributions - not acceptable.

Thanks (1)
28th Jan 2013 09:14

So many words ....

.... yet so little said.

For the hard of understanding - yes I agree that there is no gain mentioned, explicitly or otherwise, in the original question. But George's assumption - which was in fact obvious to me even if it wasn't to others - was a perfectly reasonable one to make. Depending on the time involved, I'd say that it was more likely than not that a gain will have arisen.

But in any event it is also true that the original question does not say, explicitly or otherwise, that there was NO gain. So in categorically stating that there was NO gain, you are just as wrong as you claim George to be.

Until you acknoweldge that point, no-one (at least not this writer) is going to support your arguments.

And, BTW, shouting does not help.

Thanks (3)
28th Jan 2013 10:23


Leave the attitude and CAPS lock off ... did your mother not tell you that nobody likes a smart-arse[***] let alone an arrogant one?

Thanks (4)
28th Jan 2013 11:59

The words

Sanctimonious and needle went through my mind.

No it wasn't needle. Oh what was that other word that went through my mind?

Thanks (3)
28th Jan 2013 13:19

Just like watching the real thing

Although very, very funny there was also something slightly uncomfortable in watching Basil Fawlty's incoherent ramblings dig him ever deeper into the hole. Perhaps it was that sense of dread wondering what he would say or do next that could possibly make matters worse - yet he always managed to find a way.

The resemblance is uncanny.

Thanks (1)
By Triggle
28th Jan 2013 13:26

Dont mention the GAAR. I mentioned it once but I got away with it.

Thanks (1)
28th Jan 2013 13:28

I used to enjoy...

... the way they rearranged the letter of Fawlty Towers for each episode.

My favourite was Flowery [***].  The significance of which occurred to me just today!

Thanks (2)
28th Jan 2013 15:56

I'm beginning to wonder ...

... whether "Manuel..." would not have been a more appropriate pseudonym.

Thanks (1)
28th Jan 2013 23:23

. . . . . and not one of you contributing today is remotely interested in helping the no doubt genuine querist  ( Stephen M) to understand the correct answer which I gave in my first post.     I suggest that you all read that original reply , immediately after the initial question ; and then consider how the two  posts which followed it created confusion, and ultimately abuse on the part of my detractors.  Hopefully Stephen M will have only read my first reply and understood its simplicity , and not had to read the unsavoury  contributions of several other contributors ( this seems possible given that he appears not to have contributed further).    There must be some merit in your comments about the CAPITAL LETTERS as they appear to have caused common deafness ( given that not one of you has the integrity to agree that the figures in my example were correct).

Mr. Attazder's initial blunder has been compounded by the bizarre attempts by BKD ( he tries lamely again today in the first of his three posts) to justify the unjustifiable.   This has degenerated to your competing with each other ( forgive me if I disregard the other recent contributors who have contributed NOTHING other than abuse - at least Mr. Attazder started off trying to be helpful)  in who can be the most abusive  - I can announce the victor ( as decisive as Bradley W on "SPOTY") as Mr. Attazder, whose contribution at 13.28 today demeans the profession ( I assume in that regard that he holds some position within our profession).    Some of the other attempted rebukes ( predictably based on my username) were mildly amusing - Mr. Attazder's unctuous vulgarity will not improve his chances of gaining respect for his opinions.  

Come on guys ( modern usage ), and please put less effort into unnecessary vitriol and more into respecting both the question and the querist.    I have abandoned hope that you will accept the inevitable, apologise, and confirm that I have been 100 percent right all along (not arrogance, just fact - no doubt you all have much greater knowledge of many OTHER aspects of taxation than I, but on this one you are wrong).            


Thanks (2)
By blok
29th Jan 2013 08:15


you got nothing better to do?

Thanks (2)
29th Jan 2013 08:22

Better watch this one Moderator

What an arrogant individual. For someone who has only been a member for a day or two, his second post achieved unsurpassed heights of rudeness. "I despair" (twice), "Oh Dear" (three times), "Basic Stuff" (twice), not knowing whether the OP was an accountant or a layman doing his own return, and so on.

So Euan may have missed something on this occasion - so what? He's been a valued member for nearly 8 years and posted around 5,500 times. You've got a lot of catching up to do Basil.


Thanks (2)
29th Jan 2013 08:25

One simple request

Justify, in 10 words or fewer, this categorical and unqualified statement of yours:

He has NOT made a taxable profit as an individual at all

And once you've admitted that you can't, explain why you consider George to be wrong but you to be correct.

Thanks (1)
29th Jan 2013 09:36


Yes. Sorry, you were right all along. NFO.

Thanks (0)
29th Jan 2013 09:53


Thank you for the back-handed compliment, but I am not sure what you think I have missed.  I accept that my observation that it would be easier to transfer the goods into the business at cost, whilst not untrue, would not have been in accordance with the rules in s.172C ITTOIA 2005, with which I was unfamiliar, but I stand by my response to Basil's initial reply:

"So, if the client receives goods for nothing and then transfers them to his business at market value, hasn't he made a taxable profit as an individual which should be disclosed on his tax return along with his (reduced) business profits?"

It seems that BKD agrees with me.

Thanks (1)
29th Jan 2013 10:38

Storm in a Teacup

Euan - it's no big deal. I actually agree with the first paragraph of Basil's second post - I just object most strongly to the way he presented it.

If we assume that the first donor had been in business and his closing stock included the now famed goods, HMG would have received tax on this closing stock having some value. We've all had to carry out final capital allowance computations where a proprietor overnight takes ownership of (particularly) fixed assets and we attempt to put a market value on these assets.

If the donee (at this point not in business) starts with a NIL acquisition cost HMG will hypothetically receive tax twice on the same goods as soon as they're disposed of (in this case by giving them to his new business). Without somebody pettifogging about change in value of these goods between acquisition by gift and disposal into a trading business, I believe there's no taxable profit, either income tax or capital gain.

If I'm wrong, I'll put my hands up and say so but I won't be using capital letters to respond, or try to worm my way out of it by some other method.




Thanks (0)
29th Jan 2013 11:17


Nice word Thomas. Thank you.

Yes. Basil's underlying point, that he claims everybody else missed, is that when the individual acquires the goods by gift, his base cost isn't nil, but the market value at the time.

When the goods are transferred from the individual's personal account to business stock, that transfer is made at the market value at that time, and any gain or loss (the movement in value between original gift and transfer to the business) is a CGT matter, although quite probably irrelevant (depending on values), because of the chattels exemption.

Now let me pettifog a little.

Had the original donor been liable to IHT on the transfer of the goods to the individual, a holdover election would have been possible, and the individual's effective base cost would, indeed have been nil, as you suggest.

A point that the clever Basis has omitted to mention! :)

Thanks (1)
29th Jan 2013 10:58

I always wonder about such people on this forum ...

that they could attract (let alone retain) clients is impossible to imagine. All I am left with is the image of someone sitting at their PC in their underpants with a rapier like tax mind and a tin of Special Brew for company.

Thanks (2)
29th Jan 2013 19:03


I should like to thank all contributors for any constructive comments made. I am reassured that the guidance given accords with my accounting treatment. On the other hand I can't believe that my question raised such a response. I will certainly think twice before I post anything else.

Thanks (0)
29th Jan 2013 20:25


You are quite corrrect, Stephen. There was no need for the nonsense - to which I will accept that I contributed - in response to what was a relatively straightforward question. In my view it could have all been avoided had someone chosen not to contribute in a particularly arrogant and condescending manner at 14:05 on Saturday 26th.

I think you will find that, generally, folks here welcome new members and their questions. Don't let the antics of a few put you off :)

Thanks (1)
30th Jan 2013 02:17


To Stephen M, thank you for your question and your last post - my purpose throughout was to assist you, and hopefully this was achieved.  I endorse BKD's closing comments in asking you not to be put off from asking further questions - the initial responses to your question were so plainly wrong that I felt it appropriate to draw the attention of those contributors to that fact, such was my amazement. 

To BKD, you will find that I have ALREADY answered your question ( albeit conceivably in more than your 10 words limit) - and as you can see, thomas 34 has also agreed with me ! ( your closing offensive post will be treated with the contempt it deserves).

As regards Mr. Atazder's first contribution today, obscene language of that nature is just an embarrassment, and you should be ashamed. As regards your second post today, no doubt the closing comment was intended as a rebuke, or sarcasm or both - out of order again, and best ignored.

To Euan, sorry but you have still not understood the matter - I don't think BKD does agree with you but irrespective thereof, I am sorry but you are wrong.  I had read some of your other posts, with excellent and valid comments therein, and it was thus all the more surprising that you did not understand ( and apparently still do not understand) a point which, and I say so with genuine respect, is so basic. 

To Thomas 34, sorry but you clearly miss the point also, and there was no "pettifogging" at all - I used figures to illustrate a point - the fact that not one contributor has shown any error in the figures in that example signifies the correctness of my answers.

To Mr.Holloway, I am sorry that you followed the lead of other contributors in the field of gratuitous abuse - neither valid nor funny.

I apologise if I have missed anyone out - time for sleep !


Thanks (2)
30th Jan 2013 09:14

More words from Basil ....

... and even less said.

You did not answer my question. You stated categorically that there was no gain. I asked you to clarify how you managed to reach that definitive conclsion, and you have not done so.

Whether or not someone agrees with you is irrelevant - it is your explanation that I want to hear.

And actually thomas34 'agrees' with you only if one assumes that there has been no change in value between gift and transfer. So he has done the right thing and stated his assumption. There was no assumption in your statement, so again - how did you reach the conclusion that there had been no gain?

And I stand by my comment above - if you had not been so arrogant and condescending towards others, this thread would never have kicked off in the way that it did.

the fact that not one contributor has shown any error in the figures in that example signifies the correctness of my answers

That is one way of looking at it, and one to which you're perfectly entitled. An alternative, equally valid, interpretation might be that because no-one has agreed with your figures then they are wrong (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that they are wrong. I'm not syaing that they're correct either).

Likewise with your comment that started all this nonsense - the OP did not say there had been a gain, so one might assume that there had been none. By the same token, he did not say that there had been no gain, so it would be equally valid to assume that there had been a gain (as I stated earlier, I believe that to be the more likely scenario, though it remains nothing more than an assumption). For the last time, therefore - since the OP was silent on the matter, and you have not stated any assumption, how did you conclude that there had definitely been no gain - a point that you emphasised, and unambiguously repeated later in the thread?

Thanks (1)
30th Jan 2013 08:20

Now here's an interesting...

... question.

Thanks (1)
31st Jan 2013 00:06


@ BKD.  After another long day, please forgive me if I abandon my attempts to fathom the several examples of tautology in your last post.  As for my purportedly not having answered your question I suggest that you re-read my answers more carefully. Whether you repeat the question again and again is up to you - I see no merit in paraphrasing previous responses.  As I have said several times before, it is the interests of the poser of the initial question which concern me, and I note his now understanding the position, which is good.  Less important is the fact that, to reaffirm, no contributor has been able to disprove my "example", and this clearly, at least impliedly, indicates that all are now probably in agreement therewith, including yourself ( I note with some amusement your other theories but please again forgive me for being unable to fathom their convolution) - if you are of a different opinion then can we PLEASE agree to differ ?

Any and all other express or implied attempted criticisms in your post are refuted - again I am not prepared to allow myself to be drawn into further debate, especially given the attempts at antagonism .

@ Mr.Attazder.  I regret that I am unwilling to engage on your level of debate. I have nothing to add.


Thanks (1)
31st Jan 2013 12:35


It is a well-known device of the person that has lost the argument, when asked to answer a question, to respond by saying that he has already answered it and asking the other party to re-read the thread to try and find the answer. I have better things to do than wade through screeds of garbage in the vain hope that I may find something of interest. If you won't provide a direct answer to what is a simple question, then at least point to the comment(s) where you think you already answered it. Otherwise your refusal will be taken as a concession  that you can't answer it.

As for my 'convoluted theories' - they're nothing more than simple logic. If you're unable to fathom it, it goes a long way to explain your incoherent ramblings (and, perhaps, why you mistakenly think that you may have answered my question).

So - if you continue to refuse to answer the question, we will indeed have to agree to disagree. You say that you have answered the question, I say that you haven't. Readers can decide for themselves who is correct.

Thanks (1)
31st Jan 2013 07:59


You NEVER had anything to add.

Thanks (1)
01st Feb 2013 00:06

The two Ronnies.

@ BKD.  More relevantly, contributors of posts alleging "incoherent ramblings", "screeds of garbage" ( your last post alone - I recall prior offerings were similar in style) are rightly regarded as using abuse to mask the truth ( in this case the correctness of my example), but I have NO WISH to match your writing style.  I stand resolutely behind my last post, as in the case of all previous posts, in EVERY respect.  The last two sentences of your post are correct ( the remainder equally incorrect).  If you elect to allege ( wrongly) yet again that I have not answered your question, I hereby refute it in advance.  

@ Mr. Attazder.  Noted, but incorrect.


Thanks (1)
01st Feb 2013 10:49


If you elect to allege ( wrongly) yet again that I have not answered your question, I hereby refute it in advance

Prove it then. Repeatedly saying that you have done something doesn't make it so. I can't prove a negative (though the 'proof' is there for all to see, in the lack of any answer), so the onus is on you to prove that you did answer the question. Every time you refuse to do so just makes it all the more obvious that you can't. So until you can demonstrate that you did answer the question, you will be considered not to have done so. QED. (But you'd better hurry  - this thread will be locked soon, much I am sure to everyone else's relief.)

And your last post just further confirms that George's opinion is in fact 'correct'. (In my opinion). And that is the point - it is George's opinion that you have never had anything to add. As such, however much you may disagree with that opinion, it cannot be 'incorrect'. A further illustration, therefore, of your muddled thinking that has confused you into believing (erroneously) that you answered my question.

Thanks (1)
01st Feb 2013 11:08

Thread Closed

Sorry folks but due to the level of off-topic and inappropriate argument, this thread is now closed. Please remember to respect the author's original post and our community rules when it comes to keeping discussions polite and professional.

Thanks (4)
Share this content