Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
It would be impressive if they were conducting business. Nothing in the filings point to any feasible business model being implemented at this time. No employees, no contractors, no addresses, no phone numbers, etc. This is a great idea, but is being used to dump shares instead of conducting business. What they are claiming is being done is not even legal at this point, so to each their own.
Did they find there address yet, lol!!
This company has given no investor any reason to believe what they say. They need to prove themselves over a long period of time before anytime trusts them including longs.
How is this possible if the payment option is COD with the dispensary making the delivery and products? It isn't possible for the money to go directly to PJ when the payment is COD
This is not the same at all. Where in the filing (s) does it show any costs associated with rental space or storage space? Either they are facilitating though a dispensary, which would be listed in the receipt or they are selling direct, in which costs would of been incurred. None of the filings back this.
The dispensary would be on the receipt, as they are the ones facilitating the transaction. why is there no dispensary listed on the invoice if they were providing the mmj or products?
Where is the space they place their products that are being sold? Since they are not going through a dispensary at this time, they must be the dispensary. They would need space to operate out of, which would require much more room than an office space located there. Also, I highly doubt they would store their drugs in a suite with many other companies/small businesses sharing space. This may be foolish thinking on my part, but the cards do not line up here.
What difference would that make, in all seriousness? I Equity is not running PharmaJanes, they have controlling interest. This is still Barrera's show, at least what the last filings have stated. I-Equity is located in Pasadena anyways, according to all of the domain locations affiliated with them.
This does not show any proof of AEGY being located in this building. There is not two companies working out of one workspace. AEGY/PharmaJanes are not located at this Irvine address.
This is funny. What point are you trying to prove? AEGY/PharmaJanes are not located there, LMAO! So you are telling me they are using the Source's address for their shipping purposes, since they have no physical location? This is the funniest post I have read in awhile!
Same reason why people can post a 1.00 next week. It is all everyones own personal opinion, other than why black and white facts like Hipples name being in the loop still.
Why? So when the dilution monster rears it's head at some point in the near future, you cannot locate them? LMAO! That is a wonderful idea!
Alternative Energy Partners are not located in that building. You want to try again?
Funny, I was told that they were not and were not sure who they were.
Get what? Have they fulfilled their mission of a CUSIP change? Did they do the dividend? Did they provide an address and a contact number? All of the things that are important to help clear the air for them and wipe the slate clean from Hipple, who is apparently still in the loop, but they choose not to do so? What have they done to help build investor credibility and faith?
Message boards do not affect the stock price. I am sorry, it just holds no water.
How could I? :)
Predecessors? This makes zero sense, LMAO! You say prove it to posts that talk about real things, but love this stuff?!?! How about let's look at two sentences here:
But in the same paragraph:
Dump fest. This really sucks. Will hold, as I expect it to go up again at some point. Does not look like this will happen in the near future though.
I think you mean that they are in talks regarding the matter, not approved.
Well,glad may be the wrong term to use here, LOL! But I know what you are trying to say :)
So Fellner, if not already, became a multi-millionare today, huh!? LOL! You can't make this stuff up!
1,659,497,019
Holy Dilution! Is there any hope of coming back guys/girls, LOL!? Are is this the best we can hope for in the near to mid future?
5 Milly on the ask. That sucks, LOL. I have definitely seen worse though elsewhere today where I have money. 7 times worse to be exact.
1.5 Billion volume?! LMAO, I am holding some, might as well. No point in selling now. Hopefully they can quit the Niagra Falls of share dumping going on and let this go up.
I agree with you.
It is BOOM everyday. Every day someone says that. When you say something everyday, it is bound to happen at least one of those days. Keep up with the booms, while the stock sits on idle seas, LOL! Looks like another PR is needed to get this thing moving again, but I am betting they are content with dumping at this PPS for now. When it goes back down to 5s/6's, look for another PR.
There is no motive because it is not happening. No one holds back a stock. It is where it is due to sellers and buyers. Right now, there is more selling than buying taking place, but there is buying pressure. It is being "held back" by those dumping shares, which we will not get in to again, lol.
This has been said every single day. Who is holding the stock back? I think it is where it is at due to massive dumping of shares. No reason for it to be at this level for any other reason.
I-Glow has done the work already-
"Why the Pharmajanes order was a complete fabrication.
AEGY/Pharmajanes is a public company but it seems they are already guilty of Tax Evasion.
You see there is a 7.5% sales tax on marijuana in California plus any local taxes.
And on the "cut and paste" of the order - there wasn't any sales tax charged.
Then there is the problem of what collective processed this order. This is certainly a violation of the AG guidelines - it is very odd that there aren't any collectives listed on the Pharmajanes site.
There can't be any "umbrella" or managed wholesale collectives in California - it is complete nonsense to believe that this guy placed a order and it was delivered from Pharmajanes.
What happened to all of the online payment options? No Janes Card - No Simpleprepay - no PayPal (LOL!!!)
So now shareholders are lead to believe that these collectives are processing orders and letting pharmajanes deliver them and collect cash - only in the stinky pinky world does anyone believe that story.
And then there was the guy who ordered using MasterCard - again just another completely fabricated story.
And the best thing is that Hipple is still calling all of the shots and all AEGY correspondence goes to rhipple@aegy.net.
Pharmajanes delivery - MYTH BUSTED! "
Where do you live in Indy? I can show you first hand everything I am talking about.
If you are selling goods or products online and some of your customers are located in California, you need to be aware of California’s Internet sales tax rules. As you read, keep in mind that collection of sales tax on Internet sales has been a matter of ongoing debate both in California and nationwide.
The federal government is currently considering legislation that would affect large Internet retailers and how online sales taxes are collected in all states. The proposed federal law (called the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013) would allow states to require sellers not physically located in their state to collect taxes on online and catalog sales made to people in their state. Sellers that make $1 million or less in annual sales and have no physical presence in the state would be exempt from this requirement. States would have to meet certain criteria to simplify their sales tax laws and make sales tax collection easier before they could require sellers to collect the tax.
Below is an article on the current rules on Internet sales tax in California. A new federal law scheduled under consideration would affect all state Internet sales tax laws so be sure to check for updates in this area. (We will continue to keep you updated as well.)
The General Rule: Physical Presence in the State
The current default rule throughout the United States is that you must collect sales tax on Internet sales to customers in those states where your business has a “physical presence.” The physical-presence rule is based on a 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, that addressed the obligations of mail-order businesses to collect sales tax on out-of-state sales; the decision has been extended to include online retailers. Generally speaking, a physical presence means such things as
•having a warehouse in the state
•having a store in the state
•having an office in the state, or
•having a sales representative in the state.
For a more specific statement of what counts as physical presence under California law, consult Section 6203 of California’s Revenue and Taxation Code.
Not unexpectedly, the corollary to the physical-presence rule is that, if you do not have a physical presence in the state, you generally are not required to collect sales tax for an internet-based sale to someone in that state.
Examples
The following examples generally would be valid in situations where special rules did not apply. However, keep in mind that California does have new, special rules, discussed below, that apply to large online retailers.
Example 1: You are operating solely out of a warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee and make a sale to a customer in Santa Monica, California—a state where your business has no physical presence: You are not required to collect sales tax from the Santa Monica customer.
Example 2: You are operating solely out of a warehouse in San Francisco, California and make a sale to a customer in Santa Monica, California: You are required to collect sales tax from the Santa Monica customer.
Example 3: After several years of operating solely out of a warehouse in Memphis, Tennessee, you open a one-room satellite office just outside Los Angeles, California—a state where previously you had no physical presence. A day later, you make a sale to a customer in San Diego: You are required to collect sales tax from the San Diego customer.
Non-Taxable Items
Certain items sold via the Internet to California customers may be exempt from sales tax under California law. Possible non-taxable items include:
•sales of items for resale
•sales of cold food products
•products electronically transmitted to customers, such as software, eBooks, mobile applications, and digital images
For additional information, see this online publication from the California Board of Equalization.
The Customer’s Responsibility
In cases where the online retailer does not have to collect sales tax, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay the tax—in which case it is known not as a sales tax but, rather, a “use tax.” Under California law, if an item would otherwise be subject to sales tax, it is generally subject to use tax. For more information, see this online publication from the Board of Equalization.
California’s Recent Internet Sales Tax Legislation (AB 28 and AB 155)
In the Quill decision mentioned above, the United States Supreme Court considered, but rejected, a more ambiguous sales tax rule that, instead of physical presence, would require only a so-called “nexus” between a business and a state in order for the state to require the business to collect sales tax. A nexus may include things that go beyond an obvious physical presence. California has recently attempted to use the nexus concept to impose a sales tax collection requirement on larger Internet retailers.
More specifically, during a three-month period between late June 2011 and late September 2011, California enacted two pieces of legislation, known technically as AB 28 and AB 155, that created new standards for determining a “nexus” between a business and the state for sales tax purposes. These pieces of legislation appear to be focused on large Internet-based retailers like Amazon.com.
The two bills concern Internet retailers that may not have a physical presence in California, but do have so-called “click-through” arrangements with “persons” in California. Under such arrangements, the persons in California solicit California customers and direct them to the non-California business’s website. This is often accomplished by the persons in California having websites with links that connect to the out-of-state retailer’s website. If the non-California business is making enough money from these directed sales, as well as enough money from California sales more generally, it will be required to collect California sales tax.
More specifically, under AB 28 and AB 155, the non-California Internet retailer must meet all of the following conditions before being required to collect California sales tax:
•have an agreement with a person or persons in California to direct potential buyers to the retailer’s website or link
•compensate the person or persons in California for directing potential buyers to the online retailer
•the retailer’s “total cumulative sales price” from directed sales to California customers must exceed $10,000 within the preceding 12 months, and
•the retailer’s overall total cumulative sales in California (both directed and otherwise) must exceed $1,000,000* within the preceding 12 months
In addition, AB 28 and AB 155 also state that a “retailer that is a member of a commonly controlled group” of businesses must collect California sales tax. The more complete definition, from Section 25105 of California’s Revenue and Taxation Code, indicates that a “commonly controlled group” covers such situations as businesses owned by parent corporations or two corporations with substantial overlap in stock ownership.
*AB 155 largely reiterates the key provisions of AB 28. However, where AB 28 required total cumulative sales in California (directed and undirected) to exceed $500,000, AB 155 revised that figure so that such sales must exceed $1,000,000. However, while this minimum dollar amount may exclude many small and micro Internet-based businesses, it is possible that it will be revised back down in the future as California seeks more tax revenue.
Final Thoughts
The California Internet sales tax law became effective September 15, 2012. This is mainly important for larger online retailers, like Amazon.com and Overstock.com. For most small online businesses, it is the long-established “physical presence” rule that provides primary guidance on collecting tax on sales to customers in California.
As a rule, the best place to turn for additional information about a state’s Internet sales tax laws is the state’s revenue agency. In California, the Board of Equalization has an online publication which provides a very brief overview of the state’s Internet sales tax law. It basically restates the physical-presence rule. Also, for more general information on taxes on Internet sales, see Nolo's article, Sales Tax on the Internet. And, for information on the rules about collecting sales tax for Internet sales in any other state, see Nolo’s article, 50-State Guide to Internet Sales Tax Laws.
WHAT!?! Incorrect, contact any place of business!
Just because they don't charge a customer sales tax doesn't mean the states not collecting it from the company.
No, not really. It is the difference from calling a cell phone or a different place of employment to speak about another business. Not the same by any manner.
LOL, do not question the Pacers. We got it this year!
How, LOL? They have no contact numbers. They say, Call Benz. Where is the number to contact AEGY, not Benz?
Also, how is sales tax just ignored lol?!?! Heck, when are they going to file their taxes at all for 2013?
The "Amazon of MMJ" trading at less then one penny per share. LOL!
What is funny that most people seem to think does not matter is the invoice dates on these "confirmed" purchases. Times are, in fact, synced for the location (time zone). I do not know why this is downplayed, as sells can only be made IN CALIFORNIA, in those certain zip codes. They have drivers, but no employees listed in the filings?? This is funny!