Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

PART I-FINANCIAL INFORMATION	1

Item 1. Financial Statements.	1
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 2009 (UNAUDITED) AND DECEMBER 31, 2008	1
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 AND 2008 (UNAUDITED)	2
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 AND 2008 (UNAUDITED)	3
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	4
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.	9
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.	13
Item 4T. Controls and Procedures.	14

PART II-OTHER INFORMATION	14

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.	14
Item 1A. Risk Factors.	14
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.	14
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities.	14
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.	14
Item 5. Other Information.	14
Item 6. Exhibits.	14

SIGNATURES	15

	June 30, 2009
	(unaudited)			December 31, 2008
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash	$	114,787		$	145,863
Accounts receivable, net of allowance of $154,383 as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008		500,095			732,943
Prepaid expenses		46,247			21,400
Total current assets		661,129			900,206
Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $26,254 and $18,819 at June 30, 2009 and		23,010			30,446
December 31, 2008, respectively
Goodwill		5,233,258			5,233,258
Other assets, net of amortization of $15,480 and $10,320 at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively		15,161			20,320
TOTAL ASSETS	$	5,932,558		$	6,184,230

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	104,282		$	128,280
Payable to related party		157,311			156,275
Other current liabilities		8,173			10,095
Accrued interest-related party		11,096			-
Promissory notes payable-related party		1,728,012			1,768,012
Total current liabilities		2,008,874			2,062,662
Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders' Equity:
Preferred stock, $.001 par value; 1,000,000 shares authorized and none issued		-			-
Common stock, $.001 par value; 15,000,000 shares authorized, 4,617,588 issued and outstanding at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively		4,618			4,618
Additional paid-in capital		6,628,273			6,628,273
Accumulated deficit		(2,709,207	)		(2,511,323	)
Total stockholders' equity		3,923,684			4,121,568
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY	$	5,932,558		$	6,184,230

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30,				June 30,
	2009		2008		2009			2008
Revenues	$	606,929	$	805,094	$	886,642		$	1,052,601
Costs and Expenses:
Direct costs		78,901		107,095		115,263			139,271
Payroll and related costs		319,521		286,710		642,286			570,335
Consulting fees		256		5,500		5,775			195,915
Professional fees		11,670		53,403		47,125			108,460
Interest expense-related party		33,236		37,204		66,550			77,427
General and administrative		125,701		178,095		207,526			381,695
Total costs and expenses		569,285		668,007		1,084,525			1,473,103
Net income (loss)	$	37,644	$	137,087	$	(197,883	)	$	(420,502	)

Earnings (Loss) per Share:
Basic	$	0.01	$	0.03	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.09	)
Diluted	$	0.01	$	0.02	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.09	)

Weighted average number of common shares
Basic		4,617,588		4,491,658		4,617,588			4,617,588
Diluted		5,595,032		5,595,032		4,617,588			4,617,588

	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2009			2008
CASH FLOWS - OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net loss	$	(197,883	)	$	(420,502	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Non cash stock compensation expense		-			178,000
Depreciation expense		7,435			5,722
Amortization of imputed interest on payable to related party		1,035			4,308
Amortization of software costs		5,160			5,160
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable		232,847			139,457
Prepaid expenses		(24,847	)		9,450
Accounts payable		(23,998	)		(1,364	)
Other accrued expenses		(1,922	)		(9,763	)
Accrued interest-related party		11,096			19,960
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		8,924			(69,572	)
CASH FLOWS - INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures		-			(1,303	)
Other long-term assets		-			-
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		-			(1,303	)
CASH FLOWS - FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Loans from related party					54,312
Repayment of promissory notes payable-related party		(40,000	)		-
Additional capital contributed by founder		-			3,938
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		(40,000	)		58,250
Net (decrease) increase in cash		(31,076	)		(12,623	)
Cash - beginning of period		145,863			221,873
Cash - end of period	$	114,787		$	209,250

Supplemental Disclosures of Cash Flow Information:
Cash paid for interest	$	55,455		$	53,530
Cash paid for income taxes		-			-

In the opinion of management, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and related consolidated interim statements of operations, and cash flows include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring items, necessary for their fair presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Preparing financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses. Examples include: allowances for doubtful accounts, estimates of lives and recoverable value of property, the valuation of goodwill, and assumptions used to calculate stock based compensation. Actual results and outcomes may differ from management’s estimates and assumptions.

We adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 157, Fair Value Measurement on January 1, 2008. SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure of fair value measurements. SFAS 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and accordingly, does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, SFAS No. 157 established a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows:

The FASB’s SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, including an Amendment of SFAS 115 became effective for us on January 1, 2008. SFAS 159 establishes a fair value option that permits entities to choose to measure eligible financial instruments and certain other items at fair value at specified election dates. A business entity shall report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value options have been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting date. For the six months ended June 30, 2009, there were no applicable items on which the fair value option was elected. SFAS 159 may impact our consolidated financial statements in the future.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combination, which replaces SFAS No. 141. The statement retains the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions, but requires a number of changes, including changes in the way assets and liabilities are recognized in the purchase accounting. It also changes the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising from contingencies, requires the capitalization of in-process research and development at fair value, and requires the expensing of acquisition-related costs as incurred. SFAS No. 141R is effective for us beginning January 1, 2009 and will applies prospectively to business combinations completed on or after that date. The company did not complete any business combinations during the six months ending June 30, 2009.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51 (“SFAS 160”). SFAS 160 requires: (i) the ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent be clearly identified, labeled, and presented in the consolidated statement of financial position within equity, but separate from the parent’s equity; (ii) the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the noncontrolling interest be clearly identified and presented on the face of the consolidated statement of income; (iii) changes in a parent’s ownership interest while the parent retains its controlling financial interest in its subsidiary be accounted for consistently; (iv) when a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained noncontrolling equity investment in the former subsidiary and any gain or loss on the deconsolidation be initially measured at fair value; and (v), entities provide sufficient disclosures that clearly identify and distinguish between the interests of the parent and the interests of the noncontrolling owners. SFAS 160 is effective for us as of January 1, 2009 and will apply prospectively, except for the presentation and disclosure requirements, which will apply retrospectively. The company did not have any noncontrolling interests that would fall under SFAS 160 guidelines.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (“SFAS No. 161”). SFAS No. 161 changes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities are required to provide enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 was effective for us beginning January 1, 2009. The company does not have any derivative instruments.

In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. SFAS 162 identifies the sources of accounting principles and the framework for selecting the principles to be used in the preparation of financial statements of nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in the United States (the GAAP hierarchy). SFAS 162 becomes effective 60 days following the SEC’s approval of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) amendment to AU Section 411, “The Meaning of Present Fairly in Conformity With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” and is not expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 163 Accounting for Financial Guarantee Insurance Contracts—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 60. SFAS 163 resolves existing inconsistencies in accounting for financial guarantee insurance contracts by insurance enterprises under FASB Statement No. 60, “Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises”. SFAS 163 requires that an insurance enterprise recognize a claim liability prior to an event of default (insured event) when there is evidence that credit deterioration has occurred in an insured financial obligation and clarifies how Statement 60 applies to financial guarantee insurance contracts, including the recognition and measurement to be used to account for premium revenue and claim liabilities. SFAS 163 also requires expanded disclosures about financial guarantee insurance contracts. SFAS 163 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and all interim periods within those fiscal years, except for some disclosures about the insurance enterprise’s risk-management activities. The company did not have any related contracts during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

Basic and diluted per share results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 were computed based on the earnings (loss) allocated to the common stock for the respective periods. The weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the periods was used in the calculation of basic earnings (loss) per share.

In accordance with SFAS 128, “Earnings Per Share,” the weighted average number of shares of common stock used in the calculation of diluted per share amounts is adjusted for the dilutive effects of potential common shares including the assumed exercise of warrants to purchase common stock based on the treasury stock method only if an entity records earnings from continuing operations, as such adjustments would otherwise be anti-dilutive to earnings per share from continuing operations.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, warrants to purchase 888,576 shares (977,444 shares after the 10% stock dividend) of common stock were anti-dilutive and the average number of common shares used in the calculation of basic and diluted loss per share is identical. Such potential common shares may dilute earnings per share in the future.

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30, 2009				June 30, 2009
Net income (loss) available for common shareholders (A)	$	37,644	$	137,087	$	(197,883	)	$	(420,502	)
Weighted average shares of outstanding common stock (B)		4,617,588		4,617,588		4,617,588			4,617,588
Dilutive effect of warrants to purchase common stock		977,444		977,444		977,444			977,444
Common stock and common stock equivalents (C)		5,595,032		5,595,032		5,595,032			5,595,032

Earings (Loss) per Share:
Basic	$	0.01	$	0.03	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.09	)
Diluted	$	0.01	$	0.02	$	(0.04	)	$	(0.09	)

On June 26, 2007, we acquired SALT. In determining the value attributed to the shares issued for the SALT acquisition, we were assisted by an independent third party who has expertise in the valuation of companies. The total consideration paid was $6,612,922 of which $6,404,542 was in excess of the fair value of the net assets acquired. The financial statements assume that all of the excess of the purchase price over the net tangible assets was allocated to Goodwill in accordance with SFAS No. 141 “Business Combinations” and SFAS No. 142 “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” and accordingly, no amortization expense was included in the statement of operations.

Under the provisions of SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” intangible assets are tested for impairment on an annual basis and between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change in a way to indicate a potential decline in the fair value of the reporting unit. In assessing the recoverability of the goodwill, we must make assumptions regarding estimated future cash flows and other factors to determine the fair value of the respective assets. This impairment test requires the determination of the fair value of the intangible asset. If the fair value of the intangible asset is less than its carrying value, an impairment loss will be recognized in an amount equal to the difference. If these estimates or their related assumptions change in the future, the Company may be required to record impairment charges for these assets. We re-evaluated the carrying value of the goodwill with the assistance of the valuation expert as of December 31, 2008 and an impairment loss of $1,171,284 was recognized.

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to significant concentrations of credit risk include cash and accounts receivable. As of June 30, 2009, all of our cash is placed with high credit quality financial institutions. The amount on deposit in any one institution may occasionally exceed federally insured limits of $250,000 and be subject to credit risk. We believe this risk is minimal. As of June 30, 2008, none of our cash balances were in excess of federally insured limits.

On various dates since November 2007, our founder has made advances to us aggregating $157,311. Such advances are not interest bearing, are expected to be repaid under unspecified terms and are recorded net of imputed interest. Assuming an incremental borrowing rate of 7.25% and a one year repayment term, total imputed interest on the advances was $11,127, which is being amortized over the estimated repayment period. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, such amortization amounted to $192 and $1,035, respectively. The company has also agreed to pay interest at a 5% annual rate on the outstanding advances. The interest paid in the 2nd quarter and first six months of 2009 was $1,977.

In connection with the June 26, 2007 acquisition of SALT, we issued our $1,881,550 promissory note payable to NeuCap, Inc. (“NeuCap”). NeuCap is owned by Kevin Cappock, our chief executive officer, and Robert Neuman, our vice-president. The promissory note may be prepaid any time without penalty. Originally, the promissory note accrued interest at the prime rate as set by Bank of America and all outstanding principal and interest was due six months from the date of issuance. On July 16, 2007, the company paid $20,454 towards the principal, reducing the promissory note to $1,861,096. On January 10, 2008, the promissory note was amended whereby NeuCap agreed to extend the maturity date of the note to March 31, 2008 for which we paid NeuCap an additional $20,000.

On April 11, 2008, the promissory note was again amended and the maturity date was extended to March 31, 2009, $54,808 of accrued interest was capitalized and added to the outstanding principal resulting in the principal outstanding at June 30, 2008 of $1,915,904 and the interest rate was set at 7.25% per annum. In addition, we agreed to make cash payments for both interest and principal when our month-end checking account balance exceeds $225,000; provided, however, that any such payment shall be limited to the amount that, immediately after effecting such payment, would reduce our checking account balance to not less than $200,000. In December, 2008, the company paid $147,891 towards the principal of the promissory note. On February 5, 2009, the company made a payment of $40,000 towards the principal, reducing the principal to its present level of $1,728,012.

Certain statements in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”), other than purely historical information, including estimates, projections, statements relating to our business plans, objectives, and expected operating results, and the assumptions upon which those statements are based, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believe,” “project,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intend,” “strategy,” “plan,” “may,” “should,” “will,” “would,” “will be,” “will continue,” “will likely result,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements and their absence does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. A detailed discussion of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from such forward-looking statements is included in the section titled “Risk Factors” (refer to Part I, Item 1A of our annual report for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed on Form 10K on March 31, 2009). We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Subsequent to the acquisition of SALT, our principal business focus has been to develop additional control procedures, implement a new enterprise software company wide, and establish an internal marketing division to continue growing the business of SALT. We formed a new wholly owned subsidiary called “S.A.L.T. Payroll Consultants, Inc.,” the name under which the acquired business is operated; however, we remain the owner of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the SALT acquisition.

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30,				June 30,
	2009		2008		2009			2008
Revenues	$	606,929	$	805,094	$	886,642		$	1,052,601
Costs and Expenses:
Direct costs		78,901		107,095		115,263			139,271
Payroll and related costs		319,521		286,710		642,286			570,335
Consulting fees		256		5,500		5,775			195,915
Professional fees		11,670		53,403		47,125			108,460
Interest expense-related party		33,236		37,204		66,550			77,427
General and administrative		125,701		178,095		207,526			381,695
Total costs and expenses		569,285		668,007		1,084,525			1,473,103
Net income (loss)	$	37,644	$	137,087	$	(197,883	)	$	(420,502	)

Our revenues for the second quarter and first six months of 2009 decreased 25% and 16%, respectively, from the 2008 comparable periods. We generally do not earn our fees and therefore recognize the associated revenue on an engagement until our client receives a tax refund check or a credit from the applicable taxing authorities related to the work we performed. As a result our revenues may vary from period to period in the future as a result of expected refunds being held up in administrative hearings at the taxing authorities. For the second quarter of 2009, revenues from three customers accounted for an aggregate of 60% of total revenues. For the second quarter of 2008, revenues from three customers accounted for an aggregate of 49% of total revenues.

Consulting fees for the first six months of 2009 were $190,140 lower than for the first six months of 2008. During the first six months of 2008 we incurred approximately $185,000 of consulting fees related to consultants and advisors who were assisting us with the implementation of the SALT acquisition as well as seeking and researching other potential acquisition candidates. Included in such costs in 2008 is approximately $178,000 related to the value of stock issued to certain of such advisors and consultants.

Professional fees decreased $41,733 and $61,335 during the second quarter and first six months of 2009, respectively, when compared to the comparable periods in 2008. In the 2ndt Quarter, and first six months of 2008, the company incurred professional expenses relating to the implementation of the SALT acquisition as well as seeking and researching other potential acquisition candidates.

General and administrative expenses decreased $52,394 and $174,169 in the second quarter and first six months of 2009 when compared to the comparable periods of 2008 principally due to reduced participation at a tax conference, reduced travel and reduced legal fees related to preparing material for administrative hearings related to refund challenges.

Substantially all of the interest expense for the all periods of 2009 and 2008 relates to the $1,881,550 promissory note payable to NeuCap, Inc. issued in connection with the acquisition of SALT. Interest expense is lower for the second quarter and first six months of 2009 compared to the same periods of 2008 due to payback of principal during the second half of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.

At June 30, 2009, we had working capital of $380,267 and at December 31, 2008, we had working capital of $605,556 excluding the related party promissory note issued in connection with the acquisition of SALT. The terms of the promissory note were amended in April 2008 extending the repayment date to March 31, 2009. We are currently in negotiations to extend the repayment of the Promissory Note.

One source of working capital for 2008 and 2007 was advances from our founder. On various dates since November 2007, our founder has made advances to us aggregating $157,311. Such advances are expected to be repaid under unspecified terms. In the first quarter of 2009, we began paying interest at 5% for the advances that are more than one year old. For the second quarter and first six months of 2009, we paid interest relating to these advances of $0 and $1,977, respectively.

Significant components of working capital at both June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 consist of cash and accounts receivable. As of June 30, 2009, all of our cash is placed with high credit quality financial institutions. The amount on deposit in any one institution may occasionally exceed federally insured limits of $250,000 and be subject to credit risk. We believe this risk is minimal. As of June 30, 2009 we had $0 of cash in excess of federally insured limits. As of June 30, 2009, receivables from three customers represented 36% of total accounts receivable and as of December 31, 2008 receivables from six different customers represented 65% of total accounts receivable.

Our significant working capital commitment, other than to fund operations during periods of losses, is the promissory note we issued in connection with the acquisition of SALT. On June 26, 2007, we issued our $1,881,550 promissory note payable to NeuCap, Inc. (“NeuCap”). NeuCap is owned by Kevin Cappock, our chief executive officer, and Robert Neuman, our vice-president. The promissory note may be prepaid any time without penalty. Originally, the promissory note accrued interest at the prime rate as set by Bank of America and all outstanding principal and interest was due six months from the date of issuance.. On July 16, 2007, the company paid $20,454 towards the principal, reducing the promissory note to $1,861,096. On January 10, 2008, the promissory note was amended whereby NeuCap agreed to extend the maturity date of the note to March 31, 2008 for which we paid NeuCap an additional $20,000. On April 11, 2008, the promissory note was again amended and the maturity date was extended to March 31, 2009, $54,808 of accrued interest was added to outstanding principal and the interest rate was set at 7.25% per annum. In addition, we agreed to make cash payments for both interest and principal when our month-end checking account balance exceeds $225,000; provided, however, that any such payment shall be limited to the amount that, immediately after effecting such payment, would reduce our checking account balance to not less than $200,000. In December, 2008, the company paid $147,891 towards the principal of the promissory note. On February 5, 2009, the company made a payment of $40,000 towards the principal.

The FASB’s SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, including an Amendment of SFAS 115 became effective for us on January 1, 2008. SFAS 159 establishes a fair value option that permits entities to choose to measure eligible financial instruments and certain other items at fair value at specified election dates. A business entity shall report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value options have been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting date. For the three months ended June 30, 2009, there were no applicable items on which the fair value option was elected. SFAS 159 may impact our financial statements in the future.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combination, which replaces SFAS No. 141. The statement retains the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions, but requires a number of changes, including changes in the way assets and liabilities are recognized in the purchase accounting. It also changes the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising from contingencies, requires the capitalization of in-process research and development at fair value, and requires the expensing of acquisition-related costs as incurred. SFAS No. 141R is effective for us beginning January 1, 2009 and will apply prospectively to business combinations completed on or after that date. The company did not complete any business combinations during the three months ending June 30, 2009.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51 (“SFAS 160”). SFAS 160 requires: (i) the ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent be clearly identified, labeled, and presented in the consolidated statement of financial position within equity, but separate from the parent’s equity; (ii) the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the noncontrolling interest be clearly identified and presented on the face of the consolidated statement of income; (iii) changes in a parent’s ownership interest while the parent retains its controlling financial interest in its subsidiary be accounted for consistently; (iv) when a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained noncontrolling equity investment in the former subsidiary and any gain or loss on the deconsolidation be initially measured at fair value; and (v), entities provide sufficient disclosures that clearly identify and distinguish between the interests of the parent and the interests of the noncontrolling owners. SFAS 160 is effective for us as of January 1, 2009 and will apply prospectively, except for the presentation and disclosure requirements, which will apply retrospectively. SFAS 160 is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. The company did not have any noncontrolling interests that would fall under SFAS 160 guidelines.

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (“SFAS No. 161”). SFAS No. 161 changes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities are required to provide enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for us beginning January 1, 2009 and is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. The company does not have any derivative instruments.

In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 163 Accounting for Financial Guarantee Insurance Contracts—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 60. SFAS 163 resolves existing inconsistencies in accounting for financial guarantee insurance contracts by insurance enterprises under FASB Statement No. 60, “Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises”. SFAS 163 requires that an insurance enterprise recognize a claim liability prior to an event of default (insured event) when there is evidence that credit deterioration has occurred in an insured financial obligation and clarifies how Statement 60 applies to financial guarantee insurance contracts, including the recognition and measurement to be used to account for premium revenue and claim liabilities. SFAS 163 also requires expanded disclosures about financial guarantee insurance contracts. SFAS 163 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and all interim periods within those fiscal years, except for some disclosures about the insurance enterprise’s risk-management activities. SFAS 163 is not expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements. The company did not have any related contracts during the three months ended June 30, 2009.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires us to make assumptions, estimates and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements, including the notes thereto, and related disclosures of commitments and contingencies, if any. We consider our critical accounting policies to be those that require the more significant judgments and estimates in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, including the following: allowances for doubtful accounts, estimates of lives and recoverable value of property, the valuation of goodwill, and assumptions used to calculate stock-based compensation. We rely on historical experience and on other assumptions believed to be reasonable under the circumstances in making its judgment and estimates.

The financial statements assume that all of the excess of the purchase price over the net tangible assets in connection with the June 26, 2007 acquisition of the SALT business was allocated to Goodwill in accordance with SFAS No. 141 “Business Combinations” and SFAS No. 142 “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” and accordingly, no amortization expense was included in the statement of operations.

Should the Company determine it is appropriate, it will allocate a portion or all of the excess to amortizable intangible assets and the Company may have amortization expense accordingly. Under the provisions of SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” intangible assets are tested for impairment on an annual basis and between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change in a way to indicate a potential decline in the fair value of the reporting unit. In assessing the recoverability of its intangibles, the Company must make assumptions regarding estimated future cash flows and other factors to determine the fair value of the respective assets. This impairment test requires the determination of the fair value of the intangible asset. If the fair value of the intangible asset is less than its carrying value, an impairment loss will be recognized in an amount equal to the difference. As of December 31, 2008, the Company performed an impairment analysis conducted by an independent valuation firm which indicated that the carrying value of goodwill exceeded the implied fair value of goodwill, resulting in an impairment charge of $1,171,284 in the fourth quarter of 2008. If these estimates or their related assumptions change in the future, the Company may be required to record impairment charges for these assets.

We are required to recognize expense of options or similar equity instruments issued to employees using the fair-value-based method of accounting for stock-based payments in compliance with SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment (SFAS 123(R)). SFAS 123(R) covers a wide range of share-based compensation arrangements including share options, restricted share plans, performance-based awards, share appreciation rights, and employee share purchase plans. Application of this pronouncement requires significant judgment regarding the assumptions used in the selected option pricing model, including stock price volatility and employee exercise behavior. Most of these inputs are either highly dependent on the current economic environment at the date of grant or forward-looking over the expected term of the award. On March 16, 2007, we authorized our 2007 Stock Option Plan. As of June 30, 2009, we have not issued any options pursuant to the plan.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure based closely on the definition of “disclosure controls and procedures” in Rule 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures at the end of our last fiscal year, as disclosed in our annual report for the year ended December 31, 2008. Based upon their evaluation, we concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures of our Company were effective to ensure that the information required to be disclosed in our Exchange Act reports was recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis.

31.1	Certifications of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

31.2	Certifications of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

32.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized. In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Delaware		26-2214000
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

4300 W. Cypress Street, Suite 370 Tampa, Florida		33607
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Large accelerated filer ¨	Accelerated filer ¨

Non-accelerated filer ¨	Smaller reporting company x

Class		Outstanding at June 30, 2009
Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share		4,617,588 shares

							Total
							Gains
Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		(Losses)
Goodwill	$	-	$	-	$	5,233,258	$	-

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30, 2009				June 30, 2009
Customer A	$	172,065	28	%	$	207,316	23	%
Customer B		120,994	20	%		120,994	14	%
Customer C		67,618	11	%		70,291	8	%
Customer D		56,545	9	%		93,373	11	%

Accounts receivable	$	195,899
Prepaid expenses		4,523
Property and equipment		32,706
Goodwill		5,233,258
Accounts payable		(24,748	)
Total purchase price	$	5,441,638

	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30, 2008				June 30, 2008
Customer F	$	176,772	22	%	$	180,333	17	%
Customer E		132,585	16	%		132,585	13	%
Customer G		86,105	11	%		90,111	9	%
Customer C		25,880	3	%		25,880	2	%

As of:	June 30, 2009				December 31, 2008
Customer A	$	91,221	14	%	$	9,323	1	%
Customer B		64,111	10	%		-	0	%
Customer D		56,358	9	%		-	0	%
Customer E		79,735	12	%		79,735	9	%
Customer H		-				136,416	15	%
Customer I		1,520	0	%		129,396	15	%

Balance at December 31, 2007	$	6,397,542
Cash paid for finders fee		7,000
Impairment loss		(1,171,284	)
Balance at December 31, 2008	$	5,233,258

	PINPOINT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS CORP.

Date		Signature


August 13, 2009		/S/ KEVIN CAPPOCK
		Kevin Cappock, Chief Executive Officer
		(principal executive officer) and Director

August 13, 2009		/S/ JON D. LESLIE
		Jon D. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer
		(principal financial and accounting officer)