<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for ChrisRam.net</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisram.net/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisram.net</link>
	<description>Articles, letters and other publications by Christopher Ram</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:02:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Apple Store – a wonderment in itself by Hand Sum</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisram.net/?p=866&#038;cpage=1#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Hand Sum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:02:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisram.net/?p=866#comment-21</guid>
		<description>Dear Chris: 

I would like if, on your next Plain Talk show, you can offer your opinion on the Income Tax Act regarding the application of penalty for late filing of income tax return on the part  of employees. You would have noticed in the print media (Stabroek News, February 5, 2012; and Kaieteur News, March 8, 2012)  two letters, that oppose each other, on the very issue.  I wonder what do you make of Section 99(2) given that employees are subjected to PAYE and therefore, under normal circumstance, are not be subjected to Section (99)(1)(a). 

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Chris: </p>
<p>I would like if, on your next Plain Talk show, you can offer your opinion on the Income Tax Act regarding the application of penalty for late filing of income tax return on the part  of employees. You would have noticed in the print media (Stabroek News, February 5, 2012; and Kaieteur News, March 8, 2012)  two letters, that oppose each other, on the very issue.  I wonder what do you make of Section 99(2) given that employees are subjected to PAYE and therefore, under normal circumstance, are not be subjected to Section (99)(1)(a). </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jagdeo’s mis-conceptions of the details of Guyana-Norway MOU source of international embarrassment by zaphur</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisram.net/?p=571&#038;cpage=1#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>zaphur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisram.net/?p=571#comment-2</guid>
		<description>&quot;Money Money Money&quot;

This is what the LCDS has always been about...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Money Money Money&#8221;</p>
<p>This is what the LCDS has always been about&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

