[chuggles]

Another great video Ant_made.

Can you please post the original link.

Thanks

[chuggles]

Pretty sure there is no way through the login without accepting… however I’m not a tech guy.

Is time on your side?

If it is you could write to whoever administers mygov and let them know you need access but don’t accept t&cs. Ask them how to proceed. Ask if you can be forced to accept t&cs or if informed consent in needed.

If this is something you are being ‘compelled’ to do against your wishes and are being told there is no other way then it is clear you are being coerced into agreeing. You could choose to hold your ground and not proceed if forced to accept, however that may have other implications for you.

You could contact their tech support and notice them of a problem. Something like: “My login isn’t working”. “Everytime I try and login it doesn’t let me through. It asks ‘do you accept…’ and when I say no everything stops working.” It would be interesting to see their response to this. “But you ‘have’ to accept.”

You could also proceed to accept under coercion then write a letter noticing the authority that you proceeded under coercion. They won’t care however you will at least have a record of it.

Don’t know if any of that helps.

[chuggles]

Hello Trav.

Just to clarify are they wanting you to sign a fresh deed of are you referring to one that is already signed?

[chuggles]

Hello Ant_made

Thanks for posting this. Who is the guy?

Can you post the original youtube link so I can see more of his work?

Thanks

[chuggles]

Hello shaunm.

In such a case you need to honour the note. My suggestion would be to satisfy your obligation to ‘pay’ by giving them another PN.

Remember PNs are both money and currency. Remember also that our entire monetary system is built on PNs of some sort so the only possible way to ‘pay’ is to use a PN of some description.

Hope that helps.

[chuggles]

Hello Sojourner

I’ve just had a read of the judgement. It certainly does seem to be on point regarding what Mark teaches. I suspect Mark has solid knowledge of this matter and would be interested to hear his thoughts at some stage.

However… a critical point in the judgement, and in another I’ve seen, is that when the ‘loan’ was established it was explicated how payment was to be made. In this case I think it was by electronic transfer to a specified account [see sections 34, 35, 36]. As this was part of the originating agreement and signed by both parties it is not for one party to unilaterally change that and post a PN.

If intending to do that there would need to be at least an effort to repudiate that part of the original contract.

I’ll read the judgement again later paying particular attention to sections 27 – 45.

[chuggles]

Hello Evanron

If you decided you wanted or needed a company to trade with the public then you could simply have the private trust as the sole shareholder. Each year you could distribute unfranked dividends of 100% of excess funds from the company into the trust. The company therefore has no ‘income’.

I don’t know what business you are doing however is the company necessary? By having a company you have accounting fees, ASIC fees and potentially other compliance matters.

Regarding protecting assets the entity that trades to the public should never own anything. Intellectual property could be held by the trust and licensed to the company. Real assets could again be held by the trust or you the living man and leased to the company. That way if the company gets targeted for any reason it has no assets to lose.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  chuggles.

[chuggles]

Last year Westpac went and closed a bunch of Foundation accounts. In my case they also said they have reviewed their policies and will no longer serve me as a customer.

I have my suspicions why and it relates to Private Foundations from a certain provider (probably not known to most people here).

I have had no other problems with other banks.

Yes banks are under pressure from the government for KYC (know your customer) requirements. I have been contacted more than once about verifying info and source of wealth.

It is their ‘sandpit’ so they can make the rules. I considered the situation and ended up going in to branch to get it sorted. They were very helpful and all the matters have been resolved.

[chuggles]

Hello Tasman. Re-issuing is interesting. Is it a different number? If it is a whole new number then they’re trying to get you twice on the same matter. That doesn’t seem right.

I’d personally still be inclined to re-contract and give them a PN just so they could never say I either refused to pay or didn’t pay.

Let us know how you get on. Thanks

[chuggles]

Hello Buz.

Without having viewed the correspondence my general suggestion is to not go silent. I have helped a few people with similar matters and our first letter and payment instrument was always dismissed.

We then followed up with the ‘Isn’t it true…’ letter and the matter went away.

Isn’t it true that you accepted… Isn’t it true you retained… isn’t it true that according to S93 and 50 of the BOE act your failure to attend discharges the liability… Please update you record. Isn’t it true that it is you that is in default.

I’d then follow up with something like: ‘You are HEREBY NOTICED that if this matter is escalated in any way, or if any other parties are involved, that I cannot keep working for free. My fee is $125 per 15 minutes or part thereof plus any and all other fees, costs etc. to fully resolve this matter. It is hereby agreed that your continued involvement with this matter is evidence of your agreement to these terms.

Also I have already re-contracted them with a default and liability clause then I would also send them an invoice per that agreement.

[chuggles]

Hello whitelight. Is this matter still open? I’m happy to engage with it as I think you have a good case to hold your position. Let me know where things are at. Thanks

[chuggles]

Hello tasman. There are a number of approaches to dealing with such things. The way I use at the moment is to ‘re-contract’ their presentment and ‘pay’ using a Promissory Note. So far the other party has always written back ignoring what we have done so there has always been the need for a second letter thanking them for acknowledging receipt of our contract and payment instrument and then going through the ‘isn’t it true’ questions. Isn’t it true you accepted valuable consideration, isn’t it true that you retained it for more than 72 hours etc. The big ones are section 93 and 50 of the Bill Of Exchange Act where it is clear that if they do not attend at the day, time and place specified on the Promissory Note that the liability of the maker (that’s you) is discharged. So far we have not needed more that one follow up letter. The folder inside module 36 called Payment by BOE has useful templates.

[chuggles]

Interesting they would offer money for you to get legal advice. On one hand it is good but on the other it sound a bit fishy. Accepting such money could be a tricky trap.

I know if someone has an insurance policy for their house, and a big fire sweeps through such that the government comes in and gives some compensation to victims, the act of accepting that small amount of government money effectively rescinds the insurance contract.

Have you read and understood the deed they sent?

If so then consider your options and proceed. If not then it is probably best to get advice on the matter.

BTW if I were them I’d rather pay you a lump sum and be done with you rather than a smaller sum each year. Worth considering.

Someone needed a drainage easement over another property I know of in Melbourne and they paid a $20k one time fee.

[chuggles]

Great. That puts you in a stronger position.

As to what value should be applied I’m not really sure. Your suggestion of $500 per year is probably too low as a starting point because you will almost certainly have to move during a negotiation. If you’re happy to end up at $500 perhaps start at $2k.

As a reference a phone tower attracts from $20k to $50k in common circumstances. I was on the board of a group that had a phone tower on a property in Melbourne and for years we received $40k or so. A few years ago we were obliged to accept half that in order to guarantee the ongoing use of the tower.

I’d also have a poke around the ‘legislation’ or ‘regulations’ that they are bound by and see what that says regarding paying compensation. It won’t give you a sum however it might say they are required to pay compensation (if requested). If so it’ll be a good Ace up your sleeve. Remember they are bound by statute whereas you are not.

[chuggles]

Hello Cherax. Without wanting to contradict myself from earlier I’ll say: it will likely always be easier with the ATO to send only accurate information, rather than need to go back and submit a correction.

However… there could be other friction points, like your accountant or a crypto company reporting directly to the ATO etc.

Just because a third party (crypto company) makes a report to ATO doesn’t mean it is true, doesn’t mean it was income and doesn’t mean it was for you. It could be held on trust by the name for another entity, or for the living man.

I’m helping someone else atm with an ATO matter where out of the blue they get a tax bill for over $5k. Even though his (now dismissed) accountant says there is no basis for the claim. However as he didn’t get the first notice now, officially, the only option is to pay the sum and claim it back on a future return. This is clearly not satisfactory.

We have already written to the ATO taking the; we don’t understand; please provide the documents you are relying on approach. We will staunchly hold our ground and if really pressed we will; offer to pay provided they commit to not denying us a lawful remedy. We will then satisfy the obligation to pay with a PN and hold our ground on that. (Remember Taxation Administration Regulation 21 specifically says that a tax liability must be paid in Australian Currency and the Banking Act 1959 Sect 39 defines Australian Currency as, amongst other things, including Promissory Notes.

I have submitted a corrected return for last year due to errors from the accountant. I’m still waiting for confirmation from the ATO that it has been accepted. If they raise any questions I plan to hold my ground by, amongst other things, requiring the documents they are relying on and wanting to know which official (personally) has rejected my lawful claim.

Regarding your question of what to write on the tax amendment form I’ll say firstly that an asset swapped for one of equal value can not result in income (obviously). It is simply an exchange. That is something worth holding ground on. In my case, which is different to yours, I wasn’t really sure what to write so I made a general statement about certain funds attributed to the wrong name and being classified as income when it wasn’t income (or something like that). I’ll see what they come back with.

All that to say there are several ways you could go however you need to make sure you personally understand the approach and are committed to it.

I’m happy to make suggestions regarding a specific approach you choose.

All the best.

[chuggles]

That is an option and one that reduces friction with your current tax agent.

[chuggles]

Hello Cherax. In that context that would be the usual taxation paperwork to clear up that matter. Basically deal with it the way the system wants to you in order to clear it, and then focus on submitting a corrected return.

[chuggles]

I had a quick look and cannot locate it. FYI we have Austlii.edu.au which is where I go look for current and historical legislation in Australia.

[chuggles]

I think it was Atkinson V Deputy Commissioner of Taxation SC NSW 2012. I’ve not read that one.

[chuggles]

Hello Evanron

You have numerous options so without knowing the details of your situation here is some food for thought.

Firstly you could ‘sell’ the shares to the trust, however this could have capital gains implications. This way all the ‘income’ of the company would belong to the trust.

Secondly the trust could hold the trading name or intellectual property the company uses and charge a fee for it. The fee would legitimately transfer funds from company to trust.

Thirdly the trust could offer services to the company and invoice. For instance this could be your energy. This again would transfer funds from company to trust.

Fourthly you could just assign the ‘income’.

I personally like options 2 and 3 however you will have to consider what is best for you.

[chuggles]

A generic response like ‘investments’ was sufficient. If people have sold a property or had an inheritance they might include that.

[chuggles]

Your returning their letter unopened and unaccepted is the one I’m referring to. As you’ve not consented to this presentment you could just keep doing the same for future ones.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by  chuggles.

[chuggles]

Hello Tasman. I’d be inclined to do it with every presentment. Although you’ve not consented to their first presentment they will likely keep trying to get you to contract. Your silence may be taken as such. Even if they do try that there are plenty of things you can do down the track.

Having said that I have opted to ‘go silent’ on a few matters to test out some ideas. In these cases I’ve re-contracted with valuable consideration.

Have a think and decide what you feel comfortable with and what you’re trying to learn or prove through the process.

All the best.

[chuggles]

Initially I didn’t understand PNs so I used two other approaches with success. I helped someone with a ‘counter offer’ for a $5,500 Vic Police fine for a Covid breach. That person was deep in trouble and had agreed to a payment plan then not followed through. I devised a strategy and we cleared the obligation with a $25 counter offer. It still required holding ground.

I used a BOE for a toll matter in QLD. Again needed to hold ground but the matter went away with only 1 follow up letter.

Currently using PN for two traffic matters in Vic and am about to use one to settle a Court related obligation, again in Vic.

Now that I understand PNs much better it will be my ‘go-to’ approach for dealing with matters.

Every approach will require ‘holding ground’.

[chuggles]

Thanks for the update. Your path of least resistance is to following through with the ‘usual’ paperwork and claim losses. Once that is done possibly follow up with a ‘corrected tax return’ for previous years.

If you’re determined you want to take a different approach, PN for instance, then I’m happy to talk with you about how you might do that. I have spent a fair bit of time trying to understand PNs and have started using them.

By submitting a tax return you self declare a liability and having entered a payment plan you have further acknowledged and accepted the liability. This would need to be rebutted.

[chuggles]

Hello cherax. Where are you at with this? There may be a few approaches that could be taken. Certainly you could use a PN and learn to hold your position. Another approach is to go back to the beginning and correct the ‘errors’ that lead to the alleged liability. Did you ‘self declare’ an alleged income? Did your accountant press you in to it? Or was it the result of assertive ATO action? There may be grounds simply to submit a corrected tax return and deal with the issue that way.