Private rulings

I received this from a mialing list- is this true?
As of this morning the ATO legal section is now claiming that if you apply for a private ruling before undertaking a transaction and you wouldn't have undertaken that transaction without a favourable ruling, this amounts to admitting that you were entering the transaction simply because of the tax consequences.
 
What an absurd way of thinking. :rolleyes:

So if you do your due diligence properly and get the correct advice from advisors, including the ATO when tax effectiveness involved, to ensure that you are legally comply with the law (and also to avoid the that ATO would come back later on and deny the deduction under some tax avoidance related section as they did in the past with lots of people) :mad: then the ATO will assume that are GUILTY of tax evasion!

I just don't get it. I know based on past experience that the big 4 (5 or whatever is the current number) tax accounting firms' advice written in prospectuses does not worth the paper written on (I had a couple of them disallowed by the ATO 4 years later).

Anyway, I learned one thing. If Australia will not produce a single locally made movie or theatrical production, will not have any agriculture or other related goods and we will have to import everything, I still WILL NOT put a single cent towards ANY of it. Maybe the people who let the ATO run wild with the tax effective investments can put their money into these schemes, I will not. Went through hell while tried to do the right thing once, never interested in another.

Once the rules will be changed that when something is accepted then it can not be changed during the term of the investment (neither by government not especially when "interpreted" by the ATO) then I might be willing to review my way of thinking. Under the current regime, good luck to anyone who does it and hope can sleep well when not only a partially managable commercial risk is taken on, but a completely unmanageable "Interpretation" and retrospective application is also used.

I am really p***** off what the government did in conjunction with the ATO and I had to be happy that they "allowed me to settle".

Goverment endorsed financial planners using ASIC approved prospectus, me (the sucker) trusts the information, including the accounting and legal advice in the prospectus then the ATO comes 4 years later and tells me that I stuffed it up and now I have to pay the penalty for being a tax cheat.

Just (and emotional) opnion.
 
Back
Top