Tax avoidance is usually criminal.

Yes. Don’t steal from the government, they hate competition.

You don’t understand the Australia Act at all do you? It merely removed the UK parliament from the mix as far as the States were concerned, not HMQ.

If the Governments of the Australian polities are not the Queen’s governments, why is it that she appoints all the Governors and the GG? If they are all not her Governments why did we go through the Republican campaigns.

As I said above, I respect you (and JC) above all other commentators on this site, so I can only assume that somehow I am not making myself clear. For that I apologise. But is clear from British and Australian Constitutional history that all Australian Governments are commissioned by the Crown, and therefore there power stems from the Crown.

Next you’ll be telling me that we have no Bill of Rights … Remember 1688.

How is ‘this’ ALL wrong? The Queen appoints all premiers and PM. The point of parliaments is to carry on the Queen’s government. MPs are the people we choose to advise the Sovereign. This may appear to be mere form, but the Crown is still the heart of our polity.

CL

‘So tax “minimisation” is legal tax avoidance.’

Yes. There is a distinction between ‘illegal’ and ‘criminal.’ Something can be illegal without being criminal (eg torts, breach of contract defamation or tax avoidance). Tax avoidance is usually criminal.

http://www.ato.gov.au/atp/content.asp?doc=/content/00244038.htm&page=2&H2

I think an easier example to understand the difference is:

Tax Minimisation – a company generates profit of $45,000 before wages and pays a salary package of $15,000 including super to each of its 3 directors, none of which have any other income – effectively, the company and all 3 directors pay zero tax.

Tax Avoidance – a company generates profit of $45,000 and pays a ‘management fee’ of $45,000 to its associated company which is based in Monaco. Monaco is a tax haven and therefore no tax is paid by either entity. This could be deemed a tax scheme by the ATO.

Tax Evasion – a company generates profit of $45,000 but then deliberately fails to report $45,000 of its income, reducing the reported taxable profit to zero.

This ALL wrong.

QEII is still HoS of the Cth and all the States. The Parliaments of all those entities exist only to advise her and provide Supply for Her Governments.

Right.

The Australia Acts and Statute of Westminster do not reverse the Constitutions of the Cth and the States…

Really? Perhaps you could point to where I said they did. The Australia Acts, inter alia, definitely ended the English monarch’s say in the practical constitutional governance of the states and the Commonwealth. England and its head of state are not, as you incorrectly stated, the “ultimate font” of any power – let alone “all power.”

The Parliaments of all those entities exist only to advise her and provide Supply for Her Governments.

They don’t “advise” her at all and they aren’t her governments.

A company has developed a new philanthropic initiative that allows you to save lives in Africa by donating medicine rather than money. By buying in bul they have also allowed donors to pay a 7.5% deposit down and not pay back the balance for 10, 30 or 50 years. The Donor gets the deduction for the full purchase price of the medicine in the year of onation, whilst the cash outlay in that year is very small.

This tax minimisation, because it is clearly available at law. It is not tax avoidance because the tax benefit is not the dominant purpose of the scheme, philanthropy is. If the dominant purpose of the scheme were tax avoidance, then it would become illegal by dint of the fact that the ATO would use its powers to cancel the tax benefit.

The Australia Acts and Statute of Westminster do not reverse the Constitutions of the Cth and the States, you dope, all they say is that the UK Parliament can’t override the Australian Parliaments. QEII is still HoS of the Cth and all the States. The Parliaments of all those entities exist only to advise her and provide Supply for Her Governments.

FOr someone so bright and briliant on most things, you seem to have real difficulties with Constitutional History and law.