[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Harry our Gov't considers multi national tax avoidance to be a serious issue for Australia and to that end the Senate has instituted an inquiry. The Aus Gov't does not see the matter of tax avoidance as the mere minimisation of taxation dues, nor a matter that ordinary everyday accountants would be capable of dreaming up and successfully establishing and managing.


Harry and eschwartz, the G20 meeting in Brisbane last year discussed the issue of cross border tax evasion, here's an excerpt from an Article in The Conversation: http://theconversation.com/multinati...rackdown-23421

Spoiler:

The G20 finance ministers have once again agreed to cooperate to counter aggressive cross-border tax avoidance by multinationals.

Many US firms are using tax avoidance schemes for their non-US earnings while they shamelessly claim they are paying appropriate taxes in the source countries in which they operate.

The OECD responded to earlier requests for action from the G20 by initiating the “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) project, and since then has published an action plan to address the issue. The aim of the OECD is to develop measures to counter aggressive tax avoidance in both member and non-member countries, and to limit the risk of double taxation.

When US multinationals assert that their entire non-US income is derived through the double Irish scheme (see explanation below), and is subjected to a very low rate of tax, the artificial and contrived nature of the arrangements is obvious. The OECD is making progress, but there does appear to be some unintended consequences for the OECD and national governments as they develop measures to counter tax avoidance.

Despite the extra scrutiny facing US multinationals since 2012, when Starbucks agreed to “voluntarily” pay company tax in the UK, tax avoidance activities appear not to have slowed.

Harry, here is an excerpt as to what the Aust Taxation Office (ATO) considers tax avoidance schemes are: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Tax-p...dance-schemes/

Spoiler:

Each year a significant number of arrangements that are aggressive towards the tax system are promoted to taxpayers. These arrangements reduce total tax revenue in one of three ways: by reducing a participant's taxable income or increasing their deductions against their income (or both), or by avoiding tax entirely.

There are many different types of tax avoidance schemes, ranging from mass-marketed arrangements that you might see advertised to the public to boutique arrangements - specialist financial arrangements offered directly to experienced investors. Some are marketed to individuals, and may exploit people's social or environmental conscience and generosity. Others target self-managed super funds. (follow link for rest of discussion)

Double Irish Dutch sandwich anyone?

I stand by my claim that any legal system which does not recognize its own internal responsibility for this problem-that-I-agree-is-a-problem, is a legally and morally bent legal system.

Originally Posted by Doonge

I'm reading that the Australian law is that you cannot legally game the system? With a law like that, I guess we don't need any more lawmakers: let's just say people have to understand the spirit of the law, no matter how badly it is written, and in doubt should just ditch out money to the governement.

Precisely. It is nothing more than a kangaroo court.