ATO & eBay selling bullion, paying tax

[SilverDJ]

Didn't the limit used to be $20,000 a year?

Just remember people, if the ATO come asking it's "hobby income" and you had "no reasonable expectation" to make a profit.

 

[Monsta]

Unless we can prove otherwise??

If someone has a large amount of silver and the ATO questions them how they got it, if they say the truth and say they slowly bought it all over the years with spare cash, how can the ATO deem it drug/stolen/untaxed money? They would have to prove it. If they can't, then how can they deem it drug/stolen/untaxed money?

Not disagreeing with you willrocks, but what if you need your stack and stash to pay for your defence, and they have been confiscated until you can prove legal ownership?

Show numerous small purchases over time with invoices wherever possible. That's enough to put them back in their box. Even buying as cash, un-named on the invoice is fine.

Legitimising your stack is one way to do this.

Just remember people, if the ATO come asking it's "hobby income" and you had "no reasonable expectation" to make a profit.

That's only if you are selling. I wouldn't even call it hobby income, I would admit it only to it being my savings.

 

[willrocks]

Not disagreeing with you willrocks, but what if you need your stack and stash to pay for your defence, and they have been confiscated until you can prove legal ownership?

Thankfully I don't have enough of a 'stack' for this to concern me.

 

[Skyrocket]

Not disagreeing with you willrocks, but what if you need your stack and stash to pay for your defence, and they have been confiscated until you can prove legal ownership?

Thankfully I don't have enough of a 'stack' for this to concern me.

Me too! But in 10 years time I might have something decent. I just buy what I can with spare cash. The stuff I buy from here don't come with a receipt other then Paypal gift or a bank deposit transaction. But these do not show what they are for. So how can one prove they were for PMs?

 

[hiho]

there are benefits to running a small business, you can claim all costs associated including freight, electricity, depreciation on motor vehicles etc

very easy to set up a small business as a sole trader or a partnership with your missus.

BTW turnover of $10k will be lucky to nett you $1k outright profit in the end anyway they can have the $300 tax

 

[miniroo]

I'm pretty sure it's a real email, why would anyone bother with it otherwise? they are not asking for details, just saying ebay will send them to the ATO.

Anyway I just did my tax online using etax and there was a new page in etax this year asking if any earning were made from the internet, that's never been there before.

 

[miniroo]

also the fact they want my ip address means they can then scan the net for any other dealings I might do online.
Like in this forum, they could find everything like selling in the sales section in this forum.

I wouldn;t of believed the email if I didn't pass $10,000 in sales, I added every months invoice up and that's what I got $10,049
so it's too much of a coincidence that i'd get the email as no-one could work out I passed 10k otherwise

 

[sammysilver]

Not disagreeing with you willrocks, but what if you need your stack and stash to pay for your defence, and they have been confiscated until you can prove legal ownership?

Thankfully I don't have enough of a 'stack' for this to concern me.

What if your stack appreciates by 500% due to spot breaking out?

 

[miniroo]

But it doesn't even need to.

If you buy a 1oz gold bar, sell it on ebay for the same price, go and buy a 1oz of gold coin, then sell it on ebay next month,
buy 2 kg of silver f2f, decide to sell it on ebay, buy more bullion then sell it again.

you've played with the same $1600 you started with, but because you've swapped it over and over your a business because you've made over $10,000 in sales.

you see it here all the time, people flipping things over and not really getting any money, it's the same money.

 

[willrocks]

Not disagreeing with you willrocks, but what if you need your stack and stash to pay for your defence, and they have been confiscated until you can prove legal ownership?

Thankfully I don't have enough of a 'stack' for this to concern me.

What if your stack appreciates by 500% due to spot breaking out?

Then I'll sell some, probably invest it overseas.

What if I need to prove where the money came from? I'd sign a statutory declaration as to the truth of where my silver was obtained. I have no prior or current criminal proceedings, I don't associate with known criminals. I don't even have any traffic infringements in the past 7 years.

 

[sammysilver]

All good. Different horses for courses.

 

[trew]

I thought the ATO came down hard on people that tried to claim their hobby as a business!


If the ATO sent me a notice telling me I was carrying on a business selling my coin collection my response would be 'you beauty!'

Sales income, minus purchase price, minus ebay fees, minus selling costs (Internet, computer equipment, packaging, travel costs to post office etc etc) = trading loss

 

[willrocks]

I thought the ATO came down hard on people that tried to claim their hobby as a business!


If the ATO sent me a notice telling me I was carrying on a business selling my coin collection my response would be 'you beauty!'

Sales income, minus purchase price, minus ebay fees, minus selling costs (Internet, computer equipment, packaging, travel costs to post office etc etc) = trading loss

Don't forget vehicle and fixture depreciation, electricity, rent/mortgage interest, storage fees, security (vault fees, dogs, home alarm ... etc) ...

I'm pretty sure they'd back-off very quickly.

 

[long88]

Anyone know how does ato regulate gambling money ?

Say if i win 10k jackpot, how much tax do i have to pay ?

 

[dragafem]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with everyone on this.

If you are selling over $10,000 p.a. worth of coins, which may be 400 oz of silver, you are running a business or you can prove otherwise.

Secondly, if you're staying under the radar, paying cash, and one day you have $100,000 of silver, it is drug/stolen/untaxed money, unless you can prove otherwise.

For years we have prided ourselves in being under the radar, it no longer washes in this day and age. We have to change the paradigm, we have to be squeaky clean. I had car problems yesterday, I thought shit, I'll buy a new car. Can I turn up at a car yard with $25,000 cash? Can I deposit it into my bank account? What's empowered me for a decade is now enfeebling me!

I have started selling all my fifties in order to buy them back from the LCSs in order to legitimise my stack. Similarly now, I'll have to save plus discreetly add to my bank account in order to get a new car.

When the ATO/cops/thugs come to my door, I'll have not much to worry about.

seems like to me you are already worried...

 

[SpacePete]

EVERYONE HAS TO READ THIS, IT IS A CRITICAL MISUNDERSTANDING... (sorry, I don't mean to pick on willrocks):

Secondly, if you're staying under the radar, paying cash, and one day you have $100,000 of silver, it is drug/stolen/untaxed money, unless you can prove otherwise.

Presumption of innocence is still fundamental to our Australian system of law. And unless I'm wrong, Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In section 14 of the ICCPR it states:

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

This is incorrect. In Australia, the onus of proof has been reversed in many matters related to wealth, finance and tax.

A couple of examples regarding tax:

On 23 October 2013, the decision in Mulherin v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 115 was handed down by the Full Federal Court of Australia (FFC).

The decision affirmed the critical need for supporting evidence in tax disputes, and emphasised that taxpayers must satisfy the burden of proof to successfully challenge income tax assessments.

The FFC held that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had made no error of law in its determination that, in disputing an income tax assessment, it is not enough for a taxpayer to simply demonstrate that the assessment issued by the Commissioner is incorrect.

Rather, the onus of the taxpayer in proving that an assessment issued by the Commissioner is excessive can only be discharged by the taxpayer by adducing positive evidence which demonstrates the taxable income on which tax ought to have been levied.

..Taxpayers need to retain appropriate records to support their tax position. A failure to retain such records or to put such records into evidence when involved in a dispute with the Commissioner will generally be fatal to the taxpayer's prospects of success in the dispute.

More: http://www.pwc.com.au/tax/taxtalk/a...ailure-to-Satisfy-Burden-of-Proof-05Dec13.pdf

Burden of proof on taxpayers is a heavy one

When a taxpayer disputes an assessment made by the Tax Office, it is the taxpayer that bears the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive. That is a heavy and important responsibility, as a recent Australian Administrative Tribunal case demonstrates.

...Following the information received from AUSTRAC and an audit of the taxpayer's affairs by the Tax Office, the Commissioner issued amended assessments (plus penalties) for the 2009 to 2012 income years that increased his taxable by almost $2.1 million.

...The AAT said that based on its conclusions, the parties had agreed that the taxpayer's taxable income for the relevant income years should be: $509,147 for the 2009 income year, $102,594 for the 2010 income year, $437,287 for the 2011 income year; and $370,342 for the 2012 income year. The AAT also affirmed the assessment of shortfall penalty at 50% for each of the income years with no remission in the circumstances.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/tax/45856-burden-of-proof-on-taxpayers-is-a-heavy-one.html

There are also a number of powerful and far-reaching unexplained wealth laws where the presumption is guilt and you need to prove your innocence. Remember also terrorism laws (where the definition of terrorism is fuzzy and ill-defined) are reversing presumption of innocence.

Some snippets:

...the reversal of the onus of proof in favour of the Crown, providing that 'any property, service, advantage or benefit that is a constituent of the respondent's wealth is presumed not to have been lawfully acquired unless the respondent establishes the contrary.

...

The AFP noted in its submission to the Sherman review that 'investigations can often be frustrated through lack of evidence against people with significant wealth and no apparent source of legitimate income.

http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi395.pdf

 

[SpacePete]

From the above link:

Unexplained wealth laws are a relatively recent development in confiscation law, which require a person who lives beyond their apparent means to justify the legitimacy of their financial circumstances.

Unexplained wealth laws are currently in place in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, while Commonwealth provisions recently came into effect. New South Wales has recently announced its intention to introduce laws mirroring the Commonwealth legislation. Similar laws are expected to come into effect shortly in South Australia. Laws of this nature are thought to deter would-be criminals by reducing the profitability of illegal activities and may prevent crime by diminishing offenders' ability to finance their future criminal acts.

However, critics argue that the laws infringe on people's right to silence and undermine the presumption of innocence.

 

[SpacePete]

A scenario if you are on the radar or cause trouble:

(a) A government agency makes a charge of either unexplained wealth or some finance related criminal activity against you.
(b) Confiscation laws result in seizure of your assets and possibly the levying of heavy fines.
(c) You now cannot fight the charges because you have few resources left and the gov. has deep pockets.

This is not theoretical. In a high-profile case, the U.S. and New Zealand seized Dot Com's assets and froze his bank accounts making it difficult for him to fight the charges. While this may not be completely relevant to our situation in Australia, it does show that governments are becoming more emboldened with laws increasingly in their favor.

 

[willrocks]

You're confusing civil law with criminal law.

But yes, in general I agree that gov numpties are trying to erode foundations of the Australian legal system by reversing the onus of proof. And by having summary judgements, no juries in civil cases ... It's the way things are heading, and it's a slippery slope.

EVERYONE HAS TO READ THIS, IT IS A CRITICAL MISUNDERSTANDING... (sorry, I don't mean to pick on willrocks):

Secondly, if you're staying under the radar, paying cash, and one day you have $100,000 of silver, it is drug/stolen/untaxed money, unless you can prove otherwise.

Presumption of innocence is still fundamental to our Australian system of law. And unless I'm wrong, Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In section 14 of the ICCPR it states:

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

This is incorrect. In Australia, the onus of proof has been reversed in many matters related to wealth, finance and tax.

A couple of examples regarding tax:
...

 

[dragafem]

how would ATO figure out from the $10k how much was the profit? and why I mean why include postage too in the $10k? are they really that desperate for the money? I think its already pretty unfair from ebay that they charge the final value fee with postage included.