And I thought OUR tax laws were hard to understand

[kcjenkins]

Extract from New Scientist, 12 August 2000, page 64

WE RECENTLY reported that Australians are so confused about the country's new goods and services tax (GST) that the Australian Tax Office has had to set up a helpline to answer their queries (22 July). For those who are still confused, reader Alistair Pike points out that they can try reading the actual GST Act, where all will become clear.

Or will it? Here is a sample from chapter 4, part 4, subdivision 165 of the Act "For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and ( treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as: (i) having happened at a particular time; and (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and © treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

Perhaps, on reflection, the GST helpline need only carry a simple repeated message: "No worries, mate, we're making the rules up as we go along."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722517.000.html

[TAXBILLY]

Seems perfectly clear to me !! ;~))

taxbilly

[redux]

Extract from New Scientist, 12 August 2000, page 64

WE RECENTLY reported that Australians are so confused about the country's new goods and services tax (GST) that the Australian Tax Office has had to set up a helpline to answer their queries (22 July). For those who are still confused, reader Alistair Pike points out that they can try reading the actual GST Act, where all will become clear.

Or will it? Here is a sample from chapter 4, part 4, subdivision 165 of the Act "For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and ( treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as: (i) having happened at a particular time; and (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and © treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

Perhaps, on reflection, the GST helpline need only carry a simple repeated message: "No worries, mate, we're making the rules up as we go along."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722517.000.html

It's as clear as my motto: A duck IS because they fly so high and one leg is both the same.

[JohnH]

Who is reported to have been completing his tax return and said:

"This is much too difficult for mathematicians; it's a job for philosophers"?

[kcjenkins]

That would be Albert Einstein.

[JohnH]

And he woould have enjoyed playing around with the:

"(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened;"

assuming that it happened at or near the speed of light.

I think the Australian Tax Office has found a unique way to deal with this whole space-time continuum thing... just let the Commisioner declare it to be and it becomes so.

[jainen]

>>just let the Commisioner declare it to be and it becomes so<<

Declare WHAT to be? Anybody care to reveal what the SUBJECT of "a declaration under this Subdivision" would be?

[jainen]

>>Anybody care to reveal what the SUBJECT of "a declaration under this Subdivision" would be?<<

Okay, I looked it up myself. It's buried kind of deep so I'm not sure this long link will work, but you all can find it as well as I. The quote is from Division 165-55, concerning the authority to disregard a fraudulent scheme when assessing taxes. It's rather like our own "substance over form" doctrine.

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?dbwi...declarations%3B

[kcjenkins]

It's rather like our own "substance over form" doctrine.

It's intent may be similar, but it's wording goes a LOT further than anything in our code. ;~)

[Harlan Lunsford]

Extract from New Scientist, 12 August 2000, page 64

WE RECENTLY reported that Australians are so confused about the country's new goods and services tax (GST) that the Australian Tax Office has had to set up a helpline to answer their queries (22 July). For those who are still confused, reader Alistair Pike points out that they can try reading the actual GST Act, where all will become clear.

Or will it? Here is a sample from chapter 4, part 4, subdivision 165 of the Act "For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and ( treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as: (i) having happened at a particular time; and (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and © treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

Perhaps, on reflection, the GST helpline need only carry a simple repeated message: "No worries, mate, we're making the rules up as we go along."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722517.000.html

All this bit about "treating a particular event", meaning to come up with your own

definition, puts me in mind of a client one time who wanted to claim Head of Household.

so I read her the law, in particular about how one is "considered unmmaried"... etc etc,

you've read that before I'm sure.

She of course had not maintained her separate household without him for the last six months of the year of course, BUT.... she "considered herself " unmarried, because, after all,

he comes and he goes as he pleases, and isn't there half the time.

[jainen]

>>he comes and he goes as he pleases, and isn't there half the time<<

I can't say about the missus, but it sure sounds like lover-boy considers HIMSELF to be unmarried!