Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

[Dutch1]

Thanks for adding this. It might be a reason for KK to have made this construction.

I must admit, I'm not too much familiar with the way tax returns work for companies. However, I would think that this is mostly beneficial when the company you own has losses, not when they receive a large sum of money. The 80% ownership might mostly be introduced by KK to have tax benefits at the time he did loan money to GERS and BTZO.

And as investopedia writes: "conglomerates do not need to file this type of return if they choose not to do so"

There are more reasons to hold 80%:

The holding company generally produces no products or services and is simply a vehicle for owning shares of other companies. If the holding company owns 80 percent of the voting stock of another company (the subsidiary), the holding company can qualify for tax-free dividends. Another benefit is the reduced risk exposure. The only risk the holding company has is the capital invested. The holding company also benefits from the subsidiary's goodwill and reputation, while being sheltered from risks faced by the subsidiary in the case of legal issues, tax liabilities and lawsuits

Source: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-holding-company-24217.html

IMO the parent might not be BTZO, but FCC, why else would they need to name the construction in the GERS 10Q q3-2016

"The majority of the Company's outstanding shares of Series G Preferred Stock are owned by Bitzio, Inc. The majority shareholder of Bitzio, Inc., is FLUX Carbon Corporation ("FCC"), an entity owned by Kevin Kreisler, the chairman of the Company. If all the Series G shares held by Bitzio were converted and exceeded the number of authorized common shares, there would be no contingent factors or events that a third party could bring up that would prevent Mr. Kreisler from causing the Company to authorize the additional shares. There would be no need to go to anyone outside the Company for approval since Mr. Kreisler, through FCC, controls the Company's majority shareholder."

I'm still wondering how necessary for GERS it would be to make BTZO profit from the money, if it isn't done for moving it toward FCC.
If needed to do so at all.

And like investopedia writes "conglomerates do not need to file this type of return if they choose not to do so", I really wonder if there is any need to make BTZO and FCC part of the possible windfall.
I understand why he would make them part of any losses. But by making them part of the windfall, he would also need to share the windfall with an additional 16% of common shareholders, above the 20% that hold GERS. And if he keeps it in GERS, he holds 80%.

By the way, did you know it is possibly more then 80% he holds? There is no way of knowing how many common shares are issued and how many of them are outstanding for both GERS and BTZO.