Immigration Forum / Australia and NZ / November 2007

thanks george, you're right of course, but i thought i could get a vague
idea from someone here of the implications. the people involved are in
thailand now and don't have access to a tax agent or accountant and were
hoping to do the deal before coming home. so i'm still looking for any
input. as i said, she's a permanent resident. he's an australian
citizen. their combined income is not high. this could be the break they
need to buy a house in australia.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:22:49 -0800 (PST), George Lombard
<george.lombard@gmail.com> wrote in
<d70bded7-fa67-4e17-a65f-cec304e5d1f3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>

Probably needless to say, but I am in total agreement with you on
this issue.  If I had such an issue, I would consider a newsgroup
as strictly a last resort.

Even if the person or person replying has had exactly the
same question answered for them involving an apparently identical
situation, the tax laws and regulations are constantly changing
and/or being reinterpreted.  As you have mentioned, newsgroup
posters frequently prefer to be anonymous.

For good reasons actually!  Most relate to security.

A call to the tax office may not be much better.  Sure, on simple
questions, the caller might get accurate information.  However,
this doesn't mean that all clerks have up-to-date information, or
they are correctly interpreting the written regulations.

This is not to disparage them in any way, but interpretations of
any document vary.  

Most Americans seem to think, for example, that something
like "freedom of speech" is absolute.  It isn't, of course, and
if they want to prove this to themselves they can look up
how that amendment has been interpreted since it was written.

A common and simple illustration of this was that "free speech"
doesn't give anyone the right to shout "fire" in a crowded
theatre.  Especially if their is no fire!  This can start a mass
panic in which people can get injured or killed.

Even if there is a small actual fire, a much better response
is to quickly notify a employee of the theatre, as he or she
will have been trained to follow the safest course of action.

To get back to the clerk in the government tax office, though.
It isn't unknown to call with a question and get an answer from
one clerk.  If call back a couple of more times with the same
question might end up talking to one or more other clerks, and
getting a different answer from each one.

Many readers will know of "Murphy's Law"  To save others from
looking it up, the following is a rough guide.

-------------
    "Murphy's law is an adage in Western culture that broadly
states that things will go wrong in any given situation, if you
give them a chance. "If there's more than one possible outcome of
a job or task, and one of those outcomes will result in disaster
or an undesirable consequence, then somebody will do it that
way." It is most often cited as "Whatever can go wrong, will go
wrong" (or, alternately, "Whatever can go wrong will go wrong,
and at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way" or,
"Anything that can go wrong, will," or even, "If anything can go
wrong, it will, and usually at the most inopportune moment"). The
saying is sometimes referred to as Sod's law or Finagle's law
which can also be rendered as "Anything that can go wrong,
will—at the worst possible moment".

A lesser-known addendum to Murphy's Law is Flanagan's Precept,
which categorically states that Murphy was an optimist.  [More
at]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law

"Realists", such as myself [as opposed to (shudder!) "optimists",
accept that all this is probably true.

As some [unnamed] posters to this group seem to require elaborate
explanations, suppose that a hypothetical "Joe Snerd" calls a
clerk in the tax office.  The clerk may answer "My name is John,
how can I help you?"

Does he give his surname?  Not usually.  Is "John" even his
Christian name?  Perhaps.

Joe asks his question, "John" gives his reply.  Joe depends on
his advice, and a few months later he is called in for an
interview, or even arrested.   Joe may be an "optimist" and
wonders how this could possibly happen to him.  

Perhaps he is asked to come up with a payment for tax due,
perhaps with a penalty.  Or even threatened with cancellation of
his visa, or even immediate deportation?

Am giving "worst case" here, of course, but "worst case"
sometimes happens.

What can Joe Snerd say in his defense?  In the following
imaginary scenario, he is "J" , the investigator is "TI"

(TI) We believe that you gave us incorrect information.
(J) But I consulted the government tax office! I spoke to "John"
(TI) We probably have a thousand people in the department who
identify themselves to a caller as "John".   It might actually be
his first name, who knows.  What did he say his surname was?
(J) Duh, I didn't ask.
(TI) Oh well, leave that one at the moment.  Probably wouldn't
matter.  Can you prove what you asked, and prove his reply?
(J) Uh, no, it's illegal to record conversations without a
warning beep, and I didn't have such equipment anyway.
(TI) Can you even prove that you made any calls to the
department?
(J) Uh, I called from a public pay phone.

....Is this enough plausible dialogue to give even optimists an
idea of the likely outcome?

Suppose that Joe Snerd called from his mobile or home phone? Then
he can at least establish that a call was made from him to the
department.

Does this help much?  No, and it may not help at all.  

Rather than go into further detail of what can happen, will
skip ahead to precautions.  Don't rely on verbal communication.

If you want to contact a Government department anywhere, the
best action is to put your request in writing, address it to the
"manager", and send it Registered Mail [or "Security Post"] with
a return receipt requested.

If Joe Snerd had done this, he would have proof of posting, proof
of receipt of his message signed my the manager or his private
secretary, and would know that his post hadn't got lost in the
mail.

Sure, it costs him a few dollars more, but on such an important
matter, the peace of mind should be worth it.  Easy to prove
exactly what he said and their reply.

An e-mail, perhaps, and a copy of their reply?  Not as good,
as proving exactly what he said and the tax department replied
can require a lot of legal proceedings with associated expense to
try to get this, and no guarantee that he will be successful even
then.

An interesting historical example was published in a Sydney paper
many years ago.  Don't have the details, but to roughly outline
it from memory, a rich and successful Sydney Barrister [Trial
lawyer, not a "solicitor"] tried to catch a Sydney harbour ferry
to his destination.  He had paid his fare to the destination,
perhaps a couple of shillings.  At the time, perhaps less than 20
cents U.S.  

Missed his ferry.  Didn't want to wait for the next one.  Vaulted
the fence to get back into the public area.  

A ferry security man assumed that he had come in from another
terminal, and was trying to evade paying a fare on arrival, so
demanded the likely fare from any harbour destination at the
time.  Perhaps 5 shillings, maybe around US 50 cents.

The barrister refused to pay this, so was arrested for fare
evasion.  Fought his case through all Australian courts and lost.

Finally took the final step available in those days, took his
case to the "Privy Council" in England.  Lost his case there as
well.  

As a result, he went through his considerable assets, probably
worth at few million dollars today, and died poor.  

Very stubborn bloke.  One wonders why he didn't just pay the
fare demanded in the first place.  

IMHO, he must have been an "optimist", and a very stubborn one at
that.

He was so sure that he was "right" that he wasted a fortune
trying to prove it, but still failed.  

Anyway, George, am reasonably confident that you will read my
reply.  Other members of this group can choose to read it or not.

Their decision, of course.  Neither you nor I can make them read
it, or learn anything from it.

Personally, I would feel a bit guilty if I didn't try to warn
intending immigrants, or even tourists, of potential hazards.

Having posted my warnings and advice, though, I have done the
best I can.  I can't force them to read my posts.  This is their
decision.  Everyone has free will, after all, and are ultimately
responsible for their actions or inactions.

Or at least I would so claim, as a Protestant Christian.

----------
For the Christians on the group, though:  Check KJV, Luke 17, vss
31-35 .  This should help to understand this comment, especially
verse 35.

-----------
31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of
this generation? and to what are they like? 32 They are like unto
children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another,
and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we
have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. 33 For John the
Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say,
He hath a devil. 34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking;
and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend
of publicans and sinners! 35 But wisdom is justified of all her
children.

http://kingjbible.com/luke/7.htm  

Cheers,
Kangaroo16