At 10:21 �� 26/3/2002, you wrote:
>Jerome Grimbert wrote: > >>Tony Firshman makes some magical things to make me read >>} Outside ones own country, IRCs have to be used which is 'payment' of a >>} sort - but in stamps. >>} Surely no problem with this? >> >>Probably not any problem, > >In my area of the US nobody has any idea what IRCs are. The post office >doesn't have them. The banks haven't heard of them. IRCs are not Banking units, they are Postal means of international reply (Kind of a COD but only for the value of the postage) > They are not available in central Illinois. I guess the borders are > just too far away to have need for such a device. > >This has been an inconvenience and will be in the future if required. As I said too, International Reply Coupons are not available in my post office too and I am not sure if they are at all in the US. (Although with the USPS being a chartered member of the UPU (Union Postale Universelle) I don't see why it shouldn't (Then again we have a habit here in the US to withdraw from treaties that are not convenient anymore ;-)))) See ABM, Tokyo etc ;-) >If we want the QL system to move into the future, why not use the >internet to deliver software like the rest of the world? This won't be a problem either as explained elsewhere. > >Lafe McCorkle > >>as long as it does not appear on >>the accounting system and thus leave no trace for the tax people >>... and the usage of IRC seems pretty evident, >>so alegation of 'substantial income' via IRC would be rather easy >>to turn down (at least they can be put in the small allowed % of error.) The way IRCs work,it is evident to the sender as a notice is posted on the return letter (when IRCs are used). (At least that's what happens in Greece). This way you have an additional check on the distributor's honesty :-) (Not implying anything by that of course... just clarifying the issue)
