Avoid tax by paying in face value ?

If you're carrying $100k in gold it would be common sense to carry some sort of proof-of-ownership if you're putting yourself in a position where it might be liable to retention, such as a border crossing.
 
goldpelican said:
If you're carrying $100k in gold it would be common sense to carry some sort of proof-of-ownership if you're putting yourself in a position where it might be liable to retention, such as a border crossing.
Click to expand...

It may be my lifetime's worth of savings - accumulated over 20 or 30 years - mostly bought in dribs and drabs privately.

I'd like to see how one is supposed to maintain proof of ownership of that? besides, i didn't realise it was mandatory to retain receipts for everything i purchase - particularly those things i purchase privately.

EDIT: Unless of course we're living in a police state - which of course we are :lol:
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
goldpelican said:
If you're carrying $100k in gold it would be common sense to carry some sort of proof-of-ownership if you're putting yourself in a position where it might be liable to retention, such as a border crossing.
Click to expand...

It may be my lifetime's worth of savings - accumulated over 20 or 30 years - mostly bought in dribs and drabs privately.

I'd like to see how one is supposed to maintain proof of ownership of that? besides, i didn't realise it was mandatory to retain receipts for everything i purchase - particularly those things i purchase privately.

EDIT: Unless of course we're living in a police state - which of course we are :lol:
Click to expand...
Ask those Italians who got caught transporting gold across the border. Call something proceeds of crime and all sorts of sh1te can be done.

The onus of proving the property was lawfully obtained is on the respondent and any unexplained wealth may be confiscated and forfeited to the State.
 
^ Or in other words we live in a police state where the laws are decidedly against the individual.

PAPERS PLEASE!
 
bordsilver said:
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
goldpelican said:
If you're carrying $100k in gold it would be common sense to carry some sort of proof-of-ownership if you're putting yourself in a position where it might be liable to retention, such as a border crossing.
Click to expand...

It may be my lifetime's worth of savings - accumulated over 20 or 30 years - mostly bought in dribs and drabs privately.

I'd like to see how one is supposed to maintain proof of ownership of that? besides, i didn't realise it was mandatory to retain receipts for everything i purchase - particularly those things i purchase privately.

EDIT: Unless of course we're living in a police state - which of course we are :lol:
Click to expand...
Ask those Italians who got caught transporting gold across the border. Call something proceeds of crime and all sorts of sh1te can be done.

The onus of proving the property was lawfully obtained is on the respondent and any unexplained wealth may be confiscated and forfeited to the State.
Click to expand...

Are you condoning this then?

So what is somebody like this supposed to do then? "Invent" receipts for a 20-30 year period? Kiss some asses at the ATO?
This is a serious question by the way ...
 
I just love the way people have come to accept this as the "law" and are happy to live by it and vote for it and pay taxes to support it etc etc..

We in the "West" DESERVE to become extinct then ... be it through assimilation by Muslims or Asians ... i dont care!

We just don't deserve to survive with such an utter sense of apathy and moronic acceptance of our rights being stolen by our "chosen leaders".
 
willrocks said:
^ Or in other words we live in a police state where the laws are decidedly against the individual.

PAPERS PLEASE!
Click to expand...

The real purpose of the police state, surveillance, spying etc, is to ensure the govt gets all the money that it says you owe it. As taxes become higher and higher people start to look for ways out and so the "law enforcement" needs more and more power.
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
Are you condoning this then?

So what is somebody like this supposed to do then? "Invent" receipts for a 20-30 year period? Kiss some asses at the ATO?
This is a serious question by the way ...
Click to expand...
It's me Yip! Do you think I would condone this sort of law?

What to do is a good question. Mostly (not always), unlike the American Police who get a direct benefit out of asset seizure, Australian Police have largely been responsible in applying their powers, with most of the misuse seeming to happen in cases where people have been charged but not convicted of certain crimes (notably drug trafficking).

Other guys on here have law backgrounds and may have been involved in this stuff but my guess is that although there are technically two parts to the law - i.e. being deemed a criminal and being deemed to have unexplained wealth from being a criminal - they can be muddled, particularly in the case of drug crime where (I believe) the asset seizure laws come into effect merely by being charged (but not convicted).

If I'm ever in the unlucky position of being picked on and didn't have receipts, I'd try to focus on quantities easily accumulated by being frugal and saving, say, 10-30% of my declared income over a number of years and putting most of that into PMs (noting that they'll easily know about any money you've dumped into shares etc). Obviously a major portion was accumulated when I was young and PMs were super cheap.

Without knowing the technicalities (and noting that you're in the sh1t anyway if you're needing to do this) hopefully this'll readily "explain" most or all of the stack.
 
bordsilver said:
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
Are you condoning this then?

So what is somebody like this supposed to do then? "Invent" receipts for a 20-30 year period? Kiss some asses at the ATO?
This is a serious question by the way ...
Click to expand...
It's me Yip! Do you think I would condone this sort of law?

What to do is a good question. Mostly (not always), unlike the American Police who get a direct benefit out of asset seizure, Australian Police have largely been responsible in applying their powers, with most of the misuse seeming to happen in cases where people have been charged but not convicted of certain crimes (notably drug trafficking).

Other guys on here have law backgrounds and may have been involved in this stuff but my guess is that although there are technically two parts to the law - i.e. being deemed a criminal and being deemed to have unexplained wealth from being a criminal - they can be muddled, particularly in the case of drug crime where (I believe) the asset seizure laws come into effect merely by being charged (but not convicted).

If I'm ever in the unlucky position of being picked on and didn't have receipts, I'd try to focus on quantities easily accumulated by being frugal and saving, say, 10-30% of my declared income over a number of years and putting most of that into PMs (noting that they'll easily know about any money you've dumped into shares etc). Obviously a major portion was accumulated when I was young and PMs were super cheap.

Without knowing the technicalities (and noting that you're in the sh1t anyway if you're needing to do this) hopefully this'll readily "explain" most or all of the stack.
Click to expand...
yep those reminted kooks might come in handy.
"See these nice rolls of 91 kookaburras i have kept all these years since i got them when released" :)
 
hawkeye said:
willrocks said:
^ Or in other words we live in a police state where the laws are decidedly against the individual.

PAPERS PLEASE!
Click to expand...

The real purpose of the police state, surveillance, spying etc, is to ensure the govt gets all the money that it says you owe it. As taxes become higher and higher people start to look for ways out and so the "law enforcement" needs more and more power.
Click to expand...

This is the absolute truth!

which is why i believe that western governments are behind most (if not all) of the so-called "terror attacks"!
Self engineered to ensure easy passage and acceptance of their draconian police state laws...

This i believe is the REAL/ULTIMATE reason behind the braindead idiocy of western "multiculturalism" immigration policies ...
they have by design created the large third world/muslim populations within their own countries to create this so-called threat of "home-grown" terrorism which would be believed by the citizens.
Then it's easy to convince them to give up their rights for a police state... like the frog being boiled alive ... 1 degree at a time :lol:
 
Nedsnotdead said:
yep those reminted kooks might come in handy.
"See these nice rolls of 91 kookaburras i have kept all these years since i got them when released" :)
Click to expand...
And all my vintage stuff I got from doting Aunties and Uncles when I was a baby :)
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
goldpelican said:
glam said:
Did you miss the section in your link where it say's


Or am I missing something...........

I read it as you still have to declare it, but yo will not have to pay any duty or GST on it.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to carrying gold in on your person. From the same link:

Import declarations are not required if imported goods are the accompanied personal effects of arriving passengers or crew (of a ship or aircraft) unless the goods are commercial goods.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

ok so i'll rephrase my previous question slightly differently then...
1. are you saying then that as long as i carry my 100K worth of gold bullion/coins on my person that i don't need to declare it?
2. Does "on my person" include that which i carry in my carry-on luggage?
Click to expand...

I think it would be unwise to do anything other than answer truthfully the questions asked on the incoming passenger declaration. http://www.evisastoaustralia.com/section06/customs.pdf

Particularly these two questions.

Are you bringing into Australia:
3. Goods obtained overseas or purchased duty and/or tax free in Australia
with a combined total price of more than AUD$400, including gifts?
5. AUD$10,000 or more in Australian or foreign currency equivalent?

Anyone watch Border Watch?

If I have food with me, I declare it even if I know it is OK to bring it in. The card does not ask me if I have any prohibited food, it asks me if I have any food. It's up to the customs agent to decide if it is prohibited or not, and I would argue the same for precious metals. The number of Asian visitors with bags of food who confidently declare that their food is OK, while having ticked the 'no' box on the form where it asks 'are you bringing into Australia - All Food' is comical.
Of course I would carry a copy of the document Mr Pelican linked to, any receipts for my stack, and I would be confident I would be waved through (as I have on previous arrivals in Australia in similar circumstances).

My opinion only, but certainly the way I will proceed. There are lots of arguments for or against declaring, but in the end I want to get my metal in with least amount of fuss, and I think the best way to do that is know the rules (have printed copy of anything relevant) and declare on arrival.

Last time I arrived with metal, they did not even want to see it, just scanned the bag, asked what I had and waved me through.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top