Compared to cash contracts, which require payment against the physical delivery of goods immediately or after a specified period, a futures contract is a special type of agreement made strictly under the rules of a commodity exchange, which may or may not call for the actual delivery of goods and payment in cash on a future date.

According to Emery, a futures contract can be defined as a contract for the future delivery of some commodity without reference to specific lots, made under the rules of some commercial body, in a set form, by which the conditions as to unit of amount, the quality and time of delivery are stereotyped, and only the determination of the total amounts and the price is left open to the contracting parties.

Such contracts are meant exclusively for future settlement, though the exact date of the settlement is decided by reference to the wishes of the seller and the established rules of the commodity exchange. Such contracts do not specify the particular grade of a commodity, but impliedly refer to a basic grade called the contract grade, accepted as the common grade for all futures dealings. The details in respect to the amount, the time of settlement, the quality and so forth are mentioned in the rules and regulations, and are common to all such contracts. The contracting parties have to decide upon the price at which the contract is to be settled, sometime in one of the trading months specified by the exchange.

Futures contracts are made only in the ‘ring’ of the commodity exchanges, and not outside the exchanges. Only members of a commodity exchange can enter into such a deal. No outsider can become a party to a futures agreement. Such contracts can be made only in multiples of a fixed unit of trading. No such contracts can be made in fractions of these units.

In two previous columns, we talked about how quality management attracts Publicity, or PR. Nearly every company is constantly trying to attract the attention of the media. What brings the media to a company’s door? That’s what every public relations man or woman would love to know. For this is what PR people get paid to obtain for their clients.

Quality management is certainly a key motivation in attracting a reporter’s attention. This helps persuade the reporter or a radio/TV producer that the proposed interview isn’t going to be with someone who has “nothing to say” or just rehashing a cliché or tired, old story. The higher the title and the better known a company, the greater the “impingement” a PR pitch (that’s what publicity people use to sell a reporter) impacts upon a member of the media. If someone from the publicity department at Microsoft calls Fortune magazine to ask about profiling Bill Gates, the pitch will have major impingement value. Few names have this kind of clout, either personally or corporately.

In any event, the senior editor of the major magazine will still inquire about the story angle. The editor will want to know, “What are we going to talk about?” Ultimately, it is the outstanding story that sells magazines or newspapers, not just the big name. Not all such stories involve a big name speaking or spouting his thoughts for the day. Often, better stories evolve when there is a strong newsworthy angle. Let’s look at two recent stories – one which involves a uranium company and another one about a coalbed methane (CBM) company, which we’ve covered in this column.

On Thursday, Pacific Asia China Energy (PACE) was featured in the Financing section of Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper. Headlined “High-Energy Performer,” the opening sentences told us why the reporter was interested: “PACE holds contracts to help China explore for and develop its coalbed methane (CBM) resources – fuel China needs to help satisfy its energy demands.”

The big story, which drew the newspaper to Pacific Asia China Energy, was China. PACE piggybacked that story because the company may be helping to offer a legitimate solution to the country’s energy mix. Part of the big story is the possible size of the recoverable gas, estimated in a technical report by Sproule International to be as large as 11.2 trillion cubic feet of gas.

Those two items enhanced the reporter’s interest in PACE. China needs alternative energy sources, such as CBM, to improve their energy mix – from a near total dependence upon coal. And, PACE has a potentially huge resource, which could last a good number of years. Such a gas resource could be sufficiently large to make an impact on China. After all, China has proven reserves of a little more than 30 trillion cubic feet. Another 11 trillion cubic feet, should the potential be proven up, would represent a significant increase of available gas in a very large country. By itself, this could later develop into a major international energy story, reported upon by a great number of news media. Another impingement about the reporter is having the satisfaction of reporting upon a good story, well before others write the story.

Chatter in the newsroom:
“Did you hear about PACE’s gas discovery in China, Bob?”
Bob’s Reply: “Oh that one. Yeah, I wrote about it eight months ago!”

Therefore, there are multiple impingement points in this story. Each “draw,” or a reason to attract eyeballs to the story, is another point the story must score, for the reporter and his editor, to overcome the hurdles of being featured in a major publication. China is a draw. The size of the PACE coalbed methane gas resource is a draw. The potential impact upon China’s energy mix is a draw. Writing about it before the rest of the pack jumps on the bandwagon? That’s a draw, too. In this case, four draws sufficiently attracted media coverage for this small CBM development company.

Sometimes, the timing is just perfect, and the overpowering “big story” accidentally introduces a lucky guy onto the world’s stage. On the same Thursday, the PACE story was carried in the Globe and Mail, the Chief Executive of a tiny Canadian uranium company impinged on a Russian news service reporter in Hong Kong. Such was the good fortune for Craig Lindsay, a Certified Financial Analyst, who has spent more than 16 years in corporate finance, investment banking and business development, according to the website of Magnum Uranium, for which he now serves as Chief Executive.

While Magnum has a market capitalization of about $15 million, and Lindsay is neither a geologist nor engineer, RIA Novosti news agency touted him as a “well-known energy expert.” Admittedly, Lindsay gave a great speech at the Hong Kong Club for foreign correspondents. Cleverly, he announced, “Uranium may be the next oil,” during his speech. As many other industry experts have predicted, Lindsay also forecast uranium “may hit $50/pound by the end of the year.” So many are now announcing this it is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What elevated Lindsay’s publicity was not what he said in his speech. Most of his commentary has been already been reported in numerous publications, including in our columns. (What reporters really hate is rehashing old news to give someone publicity!) It was to whom Lindsay was speaking, and especially the “timing” as to when it was said. Here is how Craig Lindsay got his “15 minutes of fame.”

About six hours earlier, the very same Russian news agency reported that Russia and Kazakhstan had signed a uranium deal worth $1 billion. The photos of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev appeared as the photo op which goes with such really big stories. This was a major event involving two very big names, and among the biggest names and countries in the uranium sector. This was also Russia’s first contract to import uranium; Kazakhstan is the world’s third largest uranium producer. All of this is “big news.”

The clever Russian freelance reporter, who attended the Lindsay speech in Hong Kong, probably text-messaged or emailed his editor by Blackberry, tried to piggyback the Russian-Kazak story with his own story. Yes, that is how timing works. As soon as a major event takes place, other journalists rush to piggyback the event with “their” story. The Russian reporter scored points with his editor and got his story filed (slang for published).

Two cunning gentlemen, the Russian stringer (slang for freelance reporter), and Craig Lindsay (whose name was spelled Kreig Lindsay in the article), both accomplished their purposes. Mr. Lindsay got his company into the world’s spotlight. The Russian stringer got a great story. The reporter threw up a softball question, for which Mr. Lindsay supplied the desired answer.

What was the question the reporter asked Lindsay? That’s pretty obvious from what the reporter published in his article. Here is a clip from the Moscow News article:

Foreign investors are ready to invest in Russia’s uranium industry, if Moscow wants this to happen and establishes a necessary legal base,” Lindsay said. “I believe that Russia is one of the most promising directions for this kind of investments, it is an undeveloped market, full of opportunities. My company will be the first to come to Russia, if the necessary conditions are created,” he added.

Nowhere in Lindsay’s speech did Magnum Uranium’s Chief Executive discuss investing in Russia. However, the reporter NEEDED a good quote. It had to tie-in with “investing in Russia for uranium development.” Lindsay accommodated. He didn’t commit to investing in Russia, but he kept the door open. Magnum Uranium recently announced the acquisition of a 1,080-acre land package in Converse County, Wyoming. The company is also exploring for uranium in both Wyoming and the Athabasca Basin. Its finances are probably already stretched from both exploration and acquisition activities. Magnum’s market capitalization would probably be insufficient to launch investments into Russia, at this time.

However, Lindsay did a great job getting his company this caliber of publicity. And he got the uranium sector excellent publicity. He capitalized upon an impinging story – a story that did show up on the world’s radar – by correctly supplying an answer the Russian journalist was trying to prod out of him.

This is the essence of how journalists and publicity-seekers work together. If the PR person gives the journalist the story angle he is looking for within the bigger story, chances are it will appear in print. Piggybacking a “main event” is the most common way to increase one’s impingement value to a reporter. And by being a cunning interviewee for his Russian reporter, Craig Lindsay just got Magnum Uranium into this column as well!

Every year, the IRS issues a list of tax scams. The goal is to alert taxpayers to the lack of merit of certain strategies as well as letting everyone know the IRS will not accept them.

2006 Scams

The IRS has kicked out its annual list of highly dubious tax scams for 2006. Promoters often make these strategies sound credible, but they simply aren’t. If a taxpayer attempts to use one of the scams, the IRS will audit and aggressively attack the taxpayer as well as try to identify the promoter for prosecution.

The 2006 list of scams contains most of the traditional claims. There are, however, three new areas being targeted by the IRS. They and a few others are highlighted in the following list.

Two new schemes have worked their way onto the list in 2006. In recent months IRS personnel have noted the emergence of the two scams––“zero wages” and “Form 843 tax abatement”–– in which filers use IRS forms to claim that their tax bills have been wrongly inflated.

Also high on the list in 2006 is “phishing,” a favorite ploy of identity thieves. Over the past few years, the IRS has observed criminals working through the Internet, posing even as representatives of the IRS itself, with the goal of tricking unsuspecting taxpayers into revealing private information that can be used to steal from their financial accounts.

1. Zero Wages – A new addition to the list, the zero wages scam is designed to create a log jam in the system. A taxpayer is supposed to file a tax return with no wages claimed and notice of challenges to any W-2 or 1099 wage reports. In essence, the idea is to not pay taxes while the IRS tries to figure out what is going on. Ultimately, the goal is to get the IRS to accept a zero income tax return, which of course requires no payment of taxes.

2. Form 843 Tax Abatement – The tax abatement strategy is very creative. It is typically used for taxpayers who have failed to file taxes for a few years. In such a situation, the IRS will often assess taxes to the individual based on a variety of factors. The strategy is to abate this assessment and pay not tax by challenging the assessed amount as being calculated incorrectly. The IRS says it doesn’t fly, but it is a very creative strategy.

3. Identity Theft/Phishing. This isn’t so much a tax reduction scam as a nightmare wherein identity thieves try to obtain information from taxpayers by acting as IRS agents. Often they send out email as though they are from the IRS. The IRS never sends emails to taxpayers, so don’t respond to these emails. If you’re not sure, call the IRS and ask them if there is a problem. You can reach the IRS at 800-829-1040.

4 Credit Repair Companies – You see these companies everywhere. Some are legitimate while others are not. The ones that are not charge high fees and do almost nothing other than putting taxpayers on some kind of a payment plan. The IRS is currently revoking the tax-exempt status of many credit repair companies.

5. Offshore Strategies – A traditional area of angst for the IRS, offshore strategies continue to be closely watched. The IRS is hyper sensitive to such strategies and tries to shut them down. In 2005, 68 individuals were charged and convicted for promotion offshore tax scams and thousands of taxpayers were audited with nightmarish results. If you want to go offshore, make sure you get qualified advice from a tax professional and attorney. Don’t buy something off a web site.

There is a fine line between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legal while tax evasion is criminal. If you wish to pursue advanced tax planning, make sure you do so with the advice of a tax professional that is going to defend the strategy to the IRS.