or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by djsherly

Thanks for getting back to me. I would tend to agree with the ex-post-facto argument generally. However it is well known and well appreciated that returns submitted to the Tax Office by individuals and companies are considered by the Tax Office to be prima facie correct. There is provision to audit the previous n years of an entities returns to establish their accuracy and compliance. If there are irregularities the legislation permits the Tax Office to go back even...
I might have missed some nuance here in the Australian context but the anti-avoidance provisions are baked into the law. It's right there now and has always been there. Basically, if it looks like a duck....Is this ex-post-facto? Genuinely curious as one who has completed legal study but never pursued it as a career.
In the Australian legislation you may be following the letter of the law, but if the aim of the scheme is principally to avoid paying tax then the Tax Office is well within its rights to examine those arrangements, and then go back and amend your returns for you so you are correctly liable had the scheme not existed. You might even get a little penalty for your mischievousness. One is not at odds with the other. The parking example you provide couldn't happen here either.
Not picking on your post in particular but Australia has always had the ability to look through 'loopholes' in it's tax statute. There are general anti avoidance provisions which can strike down business structures which are set up for the dominant purpose of avoiding tax. This is an area of law which is hardly black letter, so no-one can pout, "Hey it's a legal legal loophole, or it's perfectly legal". There's always the possibility that the ATO can review an arrangement...
Unless the agreement is found to be void ab initio meaning there was never any agreement at all.
Wow. That was, er, similar.
We can't control other people's thoughts and he's free to have his. If we lived in total darkness he'd (she'd) probably find a way to discriminate on, I dunno, southern accents. Just seems like that kind of guy (gal).
Wow, that's a cracking rant!There's also established change management principles that proven and routine CI updates do not require the same rigor in the deployment process. It's a risk based assessment. If it were part of a regularupdate it simply would have been scheduled and pushed. Although, arguably, the risk profile here probably warrants different treatment.
ZzzzWhether one has a tattoo or not means very little to me. I have none myself, but I'm not about to judge anyone who does.however, asisine statements such as yours... Well, let's put it this way: you certainly leave an impression.If the watch doesn't work for inked people I think that's too bad. Like most have said before, people make choices and choices have consequences.But in not going to get all pissy about whether one actually has a tatt or not.
So is being a jackass, I can see.They already do.
New Posts  All Forums: