Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Companies make real economic losses and incur real expenses, it's a fact of life. It's not avoidance if you don't pay tax because you did not make a profit. Even the ATO says so. Nothing wrong with minimising your tax bill.
What is a fact of life is aggressive minimisation of tax by corporates of course. (already stated) while not illegal in the sense of the word very tricky all the same. Come now, just look at Chevron and BHP as examples on the top of my head, that the tax office is actually attempting to recuperate considerable sums.
What is a fact of life is aggressive minimisation of tax by corporates of course. (already stated) while not illegal in the sense of the word very tricky all the same. Come now, just look at Chevron and BHP as examples on the top of my head, that the tax office is actually attempting to recuperate considerable sums.
The case's were both about the interpretation of complex and often vague taxation legislation.
Apart from the sums involved its really no different to individuals claiming work expenses they can not,. If the ATO were ever able to track down every false or unsubstantiated claim made, by every individual taxpayer going back several years, it would make the cheveron and BHP payouts look like pocket money
Of course the cost of fully checking every reciept every individual holds would also be horrendous. Which is why they usually go for multnationals. Its higher reward for less effort.
The case's were both about the interpretation of complex and often vague taxation legislation.
Apart from the sums involved its really no different to individuals claiming work expenses they can not,. If the ATO were ever able to track down every false or unsubstantiated claim made, by every individual taxpayer going back several years, it would make the cheveron and BHP payouts look like pocket money
Of course the cost of fully checking every reciept every individual holds would also be horrendous. Which is why they usually go for multnationals. Its higher reward for less effort.
Simply untrue. It was after the 2016 fiasco with the Panama papers and corporate tax avoidance became well known in the public domain that signs of some interest flickered. Even the Tory government (impossible to term Lib's) O'Dwyer commitment to go ahead and establish a registry to assist eradicate national tax avoidance only to deny such a commitment was ever made recently. Hence they do not go after multi nationals as they tend to use legal tax avoidance schemes.
Pay as you go, or small business far easier to go after and intimidate.
Simply untrue. It was after the 2016 fiasco with the Panama papers and corporate tax avoidance became well known in the public domain that signs of some interest flickered. Even the Tory government (impossible to term Lib's) O'Dwyer commitment to go ahead and establish a registry to assist eradicate national tax avoidance only to deny such a commitment was ever made recently. Hence they do not go after multi nationals as they tend to use legal tax avoidance schemes.
Pay as you go, or small business far easier to go after and intimidate.
I manage an accounting practice for a living. In 15 years of experience working with SBE's. Not once have I had to pass an ATO audit matter onto a client. The only things i have ever had major issues with are payroll tax audits, the states are very good at discovering that.
I manage an accounting practice for a living. In 15 years of experience working with SBE's. Not once have I had to pass an ATO audit matter onto a client. The only things i have ever had major issues with are payroll tax audits, the states are very good at discovering that.
I am aware you work in the 'industry', which 'confuses me' why you would state the ATO goes after the top end and corporate multi nationals which is far removed from being the case.
As shown, yet again, by recent government announcements, little could be further from their minds, their main donors after all.
I am aware you work in the 'industry', which 'confuses me' why you would state the ATO goes after the top end and corporate multi nationals which is far removed from being the case.
As shown, yet again, by recent government announcements, little could be further from their minds, their main donors after all.
Simply untrue. It was after the 2016 fiasco with the Panama papers and corporate tax avoidance became well known in the public domain that signs of some interest flickered. Even the Tory government (impossible to term Lib's) O'Dwyer commitment to go ahead and establish a registry to assist eradicate national tax avoidance only to deny such a commitment was ever made recently. Hence they do not go after multi nationals as they tend to use legal tax avoidance schemes.
Pay as you go, or small business far easier to go after and intimidate.
The Panama Papers came out in 2016, the judgement in the Chevron case was handed down in October 2015. There is no such thing as legal tax avoidance.
What daniel says is right, the ATO is far more interested in large taxpayers than the local fruit shop.
The Panama Papers came out in 2016, the judgement in the Chevron case was handed down in October 2015. There is no such thing as legal tax avoidance.
What daniel says is right, the ATO is far more interested in large taxpayers than the local fruit shop.
No such thing, lol. Not only is there such a thing but getting away with a fortune. ATO targets various sections periodically. I believe uber drivers and the accommodation sector are most recent to come under some degree of scrutiny. The big corporate aggressive tax minimisers would be unlikely to come to that posters direct attention. No reason why they wouldn't of course have awareness of it.
One third not paying tax, not media hype but ATO figures. Media being for the most part pro business and a such hardly sympathetic to finding fault with what they essentially are or owned by.
Same applied to banking fiasco ,especially Murdoch press. Best to look further afield for results.
Yeah no such thing. Or is Part IVA in the ITAA just make believe?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
