Originally posted by gld
Healthy Debate - aids migrant needs.

Hardest part is where we appear to technically disagree.

The operative word is appear and translating that into words.

Originally posted by gld
Alan

Before answering this email - a comment is necessary about the Brief.

The Quality of the Brief

Those from an accounting and financial background who were involved in the production of this precision worded briefing document are like myself - all Australian trained and qualified. It took approximately 150 man hours to get it ready. I am surprised that you haven't acknowledged our experience as of consequence - being yourself relatively new to the Australian system and knowing that we pioneered the pension transfer concept - we do have an acknowledged technical background and are currently providing input to Treasury in Australia on legislative amendments.

We chose blue blood quality Australian Counsel (all of whom are similarly Australian qualified) and are publicly acknowledged as expert.

Such experience should answer the question for you. No counsel opinion is binding - but sure has to be acknowledged as opposed to the consequences of going blind. As Dickens said in Great Expectations.

"Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule."

In other words the precision of the brief - would seem to indicate that any Private Ruling would similarly require you to have your wits and references about you when wording any request for a ruling.

My colleagues would not agree with what you appear to be proposing - immediately going for a Private Ruling?

It would be ridiculous in the extreme to submit a request for a ruling if you had not sought advice prior to sticking your head in the lions mouth. I am astonished you would even think that the preliminary option.

* see note from moderator below

In other words "Dear Mr Taxman - I have done this will I be taxed?"

As opposed to "Dear Mr Taxman - having taken advice I have arranged my affairs this way - I seek your clarification that I am now entitled to this tax deduction?"

Rule Number 1. Never go to the tax office and say I have done this - how are you going to tax me? You take advice beforehand.

Clearly what good a ruling if what one is requesting is an interpretation on a subject that one is not familiar with? In other words individual circumstances need to be checked over (in light of an opinion) and advice can then be given as to what one should do.

You could compare it to the situation I created back in 1993 when I set about the advice processes that were to launch the concept that would allow the Australian Financial Planning Fraternity to provide advice on the transfer of UK Pensions to Australia in conjunction with Australian trained and knowledgeable UK based advisors - I sought opinion as to what one could and could not do - I think others should have as well.

Suffice it to say that what was found in the Tax on Cash legislation required several leading Australian accountants to get their heads together. I somewhat doubt that what opportunities these specialists unearthed would be found by the man in the street. It certainly took Counsel by surprise.

I think the contention is in your eyes - not in the eyes of those who have investigated and unearthed this opportunity - sometimes legislation is drafted creating opportunity - sometimes in error - but the law is the law is the law - and the words used indicate in certain circumstances tax planning opportunities were opened up.

Note from moderator: It would be best that the professionals frequenting this forum be civilized towards a fellow professional when posting here. The tone of the paragraphs in red is unbecoming of a professional, in my opinion.

don’t worry about asking the Tax Office if it’s OK – we have a ruling (or an opinion from a Queen’s Counsel, QC, etc.)