ATO Taxation supporting evidence

[Bulletproof Monk]

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH

The following information is provided in relation to and support of the Questionnaire and Report, and has been personally conducted by the Author.
The definitions were found in Australian Government and Commonwealth documentation including Acts and Laws, and further clarification was sought as per the advice in the book “How to understand an Act of Parliament” - 8th Edition by DJ Gifford and Kenneth H. Gifford.

Chapter 2a” reads:
“In finding the right meaning to give to an Act of Parliament, the reader must give close attention to the meaning of each word that is used. This will often involve turning to the judicial dictionaries or to the standard dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary to find the meanings given to individual words in the section.”

The following common dictionaries were referenced as per that advice:

- Oxford Australian words and their origins 1989
- The Oxford English Dictionary
- The Collins Australian Dictionary 5th Edition
- Australian Oxford Dictionary 2nd Edition
- Chambers Dictionary 9th Edition
- The Macquarie Dictionary 3rd Edition
- Wikipedia Online Dictionary

RELEVANCY

The Author disagrees with Mr. Meizer’s comment that the Corporations Act 2001 is not relevant to his position on the following grounds:

The ATO provides advice and collects information relating to obligations under the Income Tax Act 1986. It promotes and supports legislation and laws made by the Government and Commonwealth of Australia.

The “Taxpayers Charter – In Detail” outlines “the relationship we seek with the community”, and “the more you know and understand these factors, the more confident you’ll be in dealing with us.”

UNDERSTANDING

The Author hereby states that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

“Under”: In or to a position below or beneath something. In or into a condition of subjection, subordination, or unconsciousness.

“Standing” : A position from which one may assert or enforce legal rights and duties.

ACTS AND LAWS

“ACT”: A legal document codifying the result of deliberations of a committee or society or legislative body.

THE CORPORATIONS LAW

The following extracts are from the Corporations Law 1989.
``Act'' means:
(a) except in relation to a jurisdiction - an Act of the Commonwealth; and
(b) in relation to a jurisdiction:
(i) in the case of a State - an Act passed by the Parliament of that State; or
(ii) in the case of the Northern Territory - an Act of the Northern Territory; or
(iii) in the case of the Capital Territory - an Act or Ordinance of the Capital Territory;
act includes thing.

LAW: A legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity; "there is a law against kidnapping"
``Law'' , in the case of a reference to this Law or to the Corporations Law of a jurisdiction, has the additional meaning given by sections 8 and 8A;
SOLE TRADER
``sole trader'' means a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange;
``member organisation'' means:
(a) in relation to a securities exchange or stock exchange:
(i) a person who is recognised under the business rules of the exchange as a suitably qualified participant of the exchange and who carries on a business of dealing in securities otherwise than in partnership; or
(ii) a partnership that is recognised under the business rules of the exchange as a suitably qualified participant of the exchange and that carries on a business of dealing in securities; and
(b) in relation to a futures organisation:
(i) a member of the futures organisation that carries on a business of dealing in futures contracts otherwise than in partnership; or
(ii) a partnership that the futures organisation recognises as a member organisation, that carries on a business of dealing in futures contracts and each partner in which is a member of some futures organisation;
``securities exchange'' means:
(a) in a provision (other than a provision of this Chapter or Chapter 6 or 7) for the purposes of which a regulation is in force defining that expression - a securities exchange as defined by that regulation; or
(b) in Chapter 6:
(i) the Exchange;
(ii) Australian Stock Exchange (Adelaide) Limited;
(iii) Australian Stock Exchange (Brisbane) Limited;
(iv) Australian Stock Exchange (Hobart) Limited;
(v) Australian Stock Exchange (Melbourne) Limited;
(vi) Australian Stock Exchange (Perth) Limited;
(vii) Australian Stock Exchange (Sydney) Limited; or
(viii) a body corporate that is declared by the regulations to be a securities exchange for the purposes of that Chapter; or
(c) in this Chapter, section 773, 778, 779, 874 or 879, subsection 920(1) or Chapter 6D:
(i) a stock exchange; or
(ii) a body corporate in relation to which an approval under section 770 is in force; or
(d) in any other provision of Chapter 7:
(i) a local stock exchange; or
(ii) an approved securities organisation;

ATO APPLICATION FORMS

The application form entitled “ABN registration for individuals (sole traders)” which is available at most ATO offices is hereby challenged as misleading and fraudulent for the following reasons:

1. The title makes a formal definition of an “individual” as a “sole trader” by the addition of brackets, thereby informing anyone who considers themselves an individual that they are to be classified as a sole trader by the ATO and the Commonwealth of Australia.

2. If a “sole trader” is an “individual”, then the definition of an individual is:
“a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange.”
(Corporations Law 1989)

3. Since a flesh and blood sentient being is not an organisation, then in this context, a person must be a corporation.

4. Since a person in this context means a corporation, then an individual in this context is also a corporation. (PERSON(S).

It is already common knowledge that there are two kinds of “person”.




DEFINITIONS

Person: (noun)
1. An individual human being.
2. A human being or corporation recognised in law as having certain rights and obligations.
Person: In the sense of an individual human being.
People (Persons): A human being (natural person) or a corporation (artificial person) regarded as having rights and duties under the law.
Chambers Dictionary 9th Edition

"Human" - Hue-Man or the "color" or a man, colourable meaning changeable, not fact.

Person:
1. An individual human being.
2. A human being or a corporation recognised in law as having certain rights and obligations.
Collins Australian Dictionary 5th Edition

Person:
1. A human being, whether a man, woman or child.
2. Any human being or artificial body of people, having rights and duties before the law.
Macquarie Dictionary 3rd Edition

None of the dictionaries referenced here describe an individual as a “sole trader”.

This is a fraudulent and misleading definition which is not common to the English language.

The Author contests that there is no verbal sounding difference between "Sole" and "Soul".

INCOME TAX ACT 1986

SECTION 17 LEVY OF INCOME TAX
17(1) [Levied on taxable incomes of certain persons]

“Subject to this Act, income tax at the rates declared by the Parliament is levied, and shall be paid, for the financial year that commenced on 1 July 1965 and for each succeeding financial year, upon the taxable income derived during the year of income by any person, whether a resident or a non-resident”
(h) the term ``person'' includes an individual, a company and any other body of persons;

TAXATION

TAX: A charge, especially a pecuniary burden which is imposed by authority. Specifically: A charge or burden laid upon persons or property for the support of a government.
LEVY: The act of levying or collecting by authority; as, the levy of troops, taxes, etc.
TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT
(SELF ASSESSMENT) ACT 1992 No. 101 of 1992
Public rulings - class of persons
"14ZAAF. The Commissioner may make a public ruling on the way in which, in the Commissioner's opinion, a tax law or tax laws would apply to a class of persons in relation to an arrangement.
Application for private ruling about own tax
"14ZAF. A person may apply to the Commissioner for a ruling on the way in which, in the Commissioner's opinion, a tax law or tax laws would apply to the person in respect of a year of income in relation to an arrangement.

[Codee]

Awsome bulletproof! Awsome!!!! There is no monk!!!!
I love how ou always refrence the ACT!!! Not some dumb court oppinion. The act is the relevant law. The opinion is evidence of such but can be out evidenced.

[Gray]

and opinion is well.......an opinion, do you think the adjective legal gives any more force?

point to the ACT, that is their LAW, point to the opinion and you get a chance for controversy; opinions on opinions. opinions squared, cubed....

why not deal with one thing

ask what them what the word 'ACT' means, if they are bound to uphold and abide by it, doesn't it make sense they understand it?

make sure the act has a preamble

[Bulletproof Monk]

Thanks Codee,

Always happy to shove their "acts" back down their throats..

I've re-posted this here because I thought it had particular significance to who is actually running the show, and how stupid these people really can be...this was a face to face questionaire with the manager of the Tax Office at the head branch, and needless to say I was a little nervous, but came away with the goods. I'll post his actual written response later, so you can see what he wrote on the form...classic.

Anyway here's the report that I wrote after he gave his answers.

LOL


REPORT ON QUESTIONNAIRE

This report is made the 21st day of October 2005 in relation to the Questionnaire provided to Cameron Meizer, Manager of the Australian Taxation Office (hereafter “ATO”) this morning.

As outlined in the abovementioned Questionnaire, the purpose was to gain a better knowledge of the relationship (if any) that exists between the ATO and the Author.

To facilitate this, the Author, seeking answers, requested specific information from the ATO relating to authority, juristiction, obligation, and definitions of “terms” as used by the ATO. This included background information relevant to the enquiry.

Prior to the agreement by Mr. Meizer to submit to the Questionnaire, he was provided with a “sample copy” of the Questionnaire for his information which clearly outlined the purpose and content, and allowed him to easily follow along with the questions being asked.

During the Questionnaire, the Author personally asked the questions to Mr. Meizer, at the ATO, with his consent, and personally took note of his answers, under Mr. Meizer’s supervision in RED pen as to distinguish the original copy.

Upon completion of the Questionnaire, Mr. Meizer refused to provide his signature. When asked for the reason Mr. Meizer stated that “There was no need to sign in the official capacity of his job”. This was noted on the Questionnaire.

The Author claims that all relevant information and conditions were outlined in the Questionnaire, and that no information was withheld. Mr Meizer was also permitted to photocopy the Questionnaire upon completion for his records.

It is with this knowledge and attached copy of said Questionnaire that the Author states the following claims and conclusions.

1. Mr. Meizer, is not qualified in his position as Manager of the ATO in regard to the information contained in the abovementioned Questionnaire.

2. Mr. Meizer is an employee of the ATO, and is not personally employed by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.

3. Mr. Meizer is not aware that “under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) income tax as levied under the relevant rating act is, when assessed and the assessment is notified to a taxpayer, a debt which is due to the Commonwealth, and payable to the Commissioner of Taxation: s 208. It is not payable to the Australian Taxation Office, whatever that may be. (Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Levick)4. (I.E: The Federal Court of Australia does not recognise the ATO.)

5. Mr. Meizer claims the ATO would generally “capture” a debt payable to the Commonwealth, if there was a debt with another Commonwealth agency.

6. Mr. Meizer does not know if the ATO can sue a flesh and blood sentient being.

7. Mr. Meizer is not qualified to discuss an ABN number (including it’s purpose, meaning, relationship to a flesh and blood sentient being etc.

8. Mr. Meizer is not qualified to define an ENTITY, even though a large number of documents in the ATO office, of which he is the manager, relate to the obligations of an ENTITY.

9. Mr. Meizer does not know if a person is a flesh and blood sentient being.

10. Mr. Meizer has not read THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 as he claims it is not relevant, even though it describes a SOLE TRADER as “a member organisation of a securities exchange.”

11. Mr. Meizer however explained that I can be a “SOLE TRADER” as an INDIVIDUAL” with an ABN.

12. Mr. Meizer does not know the meaning of “person” or “PERSON(S)”.

13. Mr Meizer has read the Income Tax Act 1986, but further commented off record that “he had not committed it to memory, as it was quite thick”.

14. Mr Meizer claims “a TAXPAYER is anyone who is required to pay tax”

15. Mr. Meizer is not qualified as to whether a flesh and blood sentient being can be transformed into an “ENTITY” or “TAXPAYER” by voluntary agreement or not.

16. Mr. Meizer acknowledges that the information he provided is in no way false, misleading or fraudulent in any way, under oath of office (if any).

17. Mr. Meizer acknowledges that by not signing, it may be assumed that he is not qualified to provide that information or that the information given is invalid or in some way misleading, fraudulent or incorrect.

18. Mr. Meizer has not read “How to understand an Act of Parliament” - 8th Edition by DJ Gifford and Kenneth H. Gifford”.

19. Mr. Meizer is not qualified to establish a “relationship” between the ATO and the Author.

20. As Mr. Meizer is the person of highest Authority, the Author must assume that no other person at that office is qualified in the matter either.

CONCLUSION

In consideration of the possibility that no-one at the ATO office managed by Mr. Cameron Meizer is qualified to establish a relationship between the ATO and the Author, and considering that the Federal Court does not recognise the ATO, the Author contests the relevance and purpose of said office and recommends it’s immediate closure.

The Author states that until such time as undeniable proof is provided to him as to the existence of a “relationship” between the Author as a flesh and blood human being and the ATO, the Author must assume that there is none.

The Author, having taken as much care as possible to investigate this matter, cannot therefore be held responsible for any claim of TAX avoidance, or otherwise, as he has taken reasonable steps to establish the facts. The Author claims that in the event that no relationship can be proven to exist between the ATO and the Author, any prior relationship must therefore have been fraudulent, and is void.