the Australian Taxation Office was never officially gazetted in 1973

[Rev. Chris Roubis]

the Australian Taxation Office was never officially gazetted in 1973 at its formation. Legally, therefore, the A.T.O. does not exist!

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/questio ... /p00255730

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!



The I.T.R. (Institute of Taxation Research) has now received irrefutable proof (through an exhaustive Freedom of Information Act search), that the Australian Taxation Office was never officially gazetted in 1973 at its formation. Legally, therefore, the A.T.O. does not exist! A barrister in Sydney presented this information to a Judicial Registrar who was hearing a liquidation proceeding. The Registrar adjourned the case immediately, after appearing "visibly shaken". Only a matter of hours later, an airline pilot who is in the Federal Court in Melbourne, against the A.T.O., was contacted by solicitors representing that august body, and informed that they were not proceeding with the case. I wonder why?

I quote from an earlier F.O.I. Act request asking for ".. certified copies of the documents that establish the Australian Taxation Office".

In response, Mr. R. J. Tomkins, (A.T.O. Solicitor), reports:

"With regards the creation of the Australian Taxation Office (A.T.O.), I was able to ascertain that the A.T.O was created as a branch of the Commonwealth Public Service by an executive instrument in 1973. Officers of the Commonwealth Public Service are assigned to the A.T.O and the Commissioner of Taxation is put in charge of those Officers by section 25(4) of the Public Service Act 1922. "An extensive search of the A.T.O. library and records management system failed to identify any document relevant to this part of your request. Similarly, enquiries to the Commissioner's Office, People and Structures Branch, The Delegations and Authorisations Officer and the Parliamentary Business Unit did not identify any document. "On the advice of the Australian Government Solicitor's Office, I contacted the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General in an attempt to identify, and obtain a copy of the executive instrument. This office referred me to the Federal Executive Council who then suggested I contact Australian Archives. A detailed search by all offices failed to locate the relevant document. "Accordingly, I am obliged in terms of section 24A of the Act to deny access to this part of your application on the grounds that I was not able to locate the requested document".

It was from this original F.O.I. Act request, that the I.T.R. was eventually able to identify that the A.T.O. was never legally formed, and therefore, has been illegally illiciting taxes since its formation! The I.T.R. takes the view that all the tax laws in the country are illegal anyway, (under an illegal Constitution), and that therefore, taxes are voluntary."



Reply

0 likes

Most helpful response
Go to most helpful reply
Most helpful reply
Avatar of man brown hair and beard
Author:
TobyJDodd
Registered Tax Professional
14 Sept 2023
The Federal Court, Brisbane has found that the Institute of Taxation Research and Wayne Levick have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in the provision of taxation advice.

For several years, both ITR and Levick instituted case after case in the Federal and High Courts in an attempt to argue that the various Income Tax Acts, including the recent Goods and Services Tax legislation were illegal.

In more than 35 cases, the courts have rejected the arguments. Justice Hill of the Federal Court of Australia described them as "nonsense" (Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674).

ITR and Levick had commenced these actions on behalf of consumers and small businesses who had been led to believe that they could avoid paying tax and could successfully defend legal action against them by the Australian Taxation Office. At no time have ITR or Levick explained to consumers that none of their arguments had been successful.

Until the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission instituted proceedings in December 2000, both ITR and Levick maintained web sites devoted to their arguments that changes in Australia's international sovereignty since 1901 have meant that thousands of laws passed by parliaments are illegal.

The ACCC instituted legal proceedings against ITR and Levick following an investigation requested by the Australian Taxation Office.

The ACCC was concerned that consumers who approached ITR and/or Levick were not aware of all the facts. In not informing potential clients that the courts have rejected all of their arguments, ITR and Levick were peddling false hopes.

Neither ITR nor Levick attended Court to defend themselves against the ACCC's action. Accordingly, after examining the ACCC's evidence Justice Cooper awarded injunctions against both ITR and Levick preventing them from continuing to make the representations. Justice Cooper also ordered that ITR write to those clients it has obtained since 10 March 2000 advising them of the ACCC's action and the orders made.


All replies
Most helpful reply
Avatar of man brown hair and beard
Author:
TobyJDodd
Registered Tax Professional
14 Sept 2023
The Federal Court, Brisbane has found that the Institute of Taxation Research and Wayne Levick have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in the provision of taxation advice.

For several years, both ITR and Levick instituted case after case in the Federal and High Courts in an attempt to argue that the various Income Tax Acts, including the recent Goods and Services Tax legislation were illegal.

In more than 35 cases, the courts have rejected the arguments. Justice Hill of the Federal Court of Australia described them as "nonsense" (Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674).

ITR and Levick had commenced these actions on behalf of consumers and small businesses who had been led to believe that they could avoid paying tax and could successfully defend legal action against them by the Australian Taxation Office. At no time have ITR or Levick explained to consumers that none of their arguments had been successful.

Until the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission instituted proceedings in December 2000, both ITR and Levick maintained web sites devoted to their arguments that changes in Australia's international sovereignty since 1901 have meant that thousands of laws passed by parliaments are illegal.

The ACCC instituted legal proceedings against ITR and Levick following an investigation requested by the Australian Taxation Office.

The ACCC was concerned that consumers who approached ITR and/or Levick were not aware of all the facts. In not informing potential clients that the courts have rejected all of their arguments, ITR and Levick were peddling false hopes.

Neither ITR nor Levick attended Court to defend themselves against the ACCC's action. Accordingly, after examining the ACCC's evidence Justice Cooper awarded injunctions against both ITR and Levick preventing them from continuing to make the representations. Justice Cooper also ordered that ITR write to those clients it has obtained since 10 March 2000 advising them of the ACCC's action and the orders made.



Reply

0 likes