New to bullion investing. Do i pay Tax on profits?

[hills]

This is a polarising subject with some electing to pay tax regardless, and some not.

However, for what it is worth, there is a view that no tax is payable on legal tender, and there are also exemptions from any perceived tax obligations if your intent is to preserve wealth/purchasing power and not make a profit.

Do a search for appeals tribunal rulings in previous posts on this subject, and make up your own mind.

For those that are lazy, a link to one of Boston's previous post on the topic:
http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-36860.html#p36860

this AAT decision decides whether the profit on sale of bullion is assessable under section 26 of the income tax assessment act for income earned during the 1983 tax year, which they concluded it wasn't.

however, the profit considered in the case was earned before the Capital Gain Tax sections of the tax act were brought in during 1985 which created a whole new way of looking at profits made on sale of assets. I would therefore say that the AAT case is now redundant when looking at profit on sale of bullion as it is no longer taxed under s26.

 

[Old Codger]

If the guvmint does not know I have bought or sold the silver I own, then they will collect no tax.


OC

 

[capt.sparrow]

From what I can gather faux-courts are not bound by precedent. They are however bound by Ch III court decisions - would be awesome for someone to take it to a Full Federal or High Court.

For the uninformed, ie myself , what are Ch III court decisions?

Decisions of courts that fall under Ch III of the Constitution i.e. Federal Court, High Court etc.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other Taxation Tribunals are not real courts (come under the Executive branch of govt.) so don't have all the proper rules of evidence and precedent etc. but you can appeal their decisions on some grounds to Fed and High Court to obtain a binding precedent.

Ah that makes sense as the ATO is actually an illegal entity... so it makes sense that the "court" or tribunal which it uses to try to enforce its "rulings" is not a real court.
I strongly suspect that if the Common Law rights of individuals were properly enforced in our judicial system that many of the so-called "laws" (which are actually statutes and therefore require the consent of those it supposedly regulates, which basically boils down to these statutes being voluntary) - particularly those relating to taxes, lisencing requirements and fines would be uneforceable in court, since most of them are in fact illegal to enforce. So government has to roundabout methods to "legally" enforce these illegal measures to steal private property by using these tribunal pseudo courts, which are nothing more than kangaroo courts if you really think about it.

This has all come about due to governments outgrowing their bona fide functions and limitations, as set out in the constituions of our western democracies. One good example is where the constitution plainly states that only gold and silver may be used as legal tender.
This is so in the US constitution, and i suspect it is also so in the Australian constitution.
But western governments have repeatedly ignored their very own constitutions in their efforts to grab more and more power and in the process have trampled upon the rights of their own citizens...

Personally I believe that to resist such illegal statutes is not a crime. The crime is being perpetrated by government, not by those refusing to accede to their illegal statutes.

 

[jnkmbx]

Ha ha, maybe with enough support, a class action lawsuit against the ATO is possible.

"The People vs. The Australian Tax Office"

 

[Big A.D.]

if the Common Law rights of individuals were properly enforced in our judicial system that many of the so-called "laws" (which are actually statutes and therefore require the consent of those it supposedly regulates, which basically boils down to these statutes being voluntary) - particularly those relating to taxes, lisencing requirements and fines would be uneforceable in court, since most of them are in fact illegal to enforce. So government has to roundabout methods to "legally" enforce these illegal measures to steal private property by using these tribunal pseudo courts, which are nothing more than kangaroo courts if you really think about it.

Statutes are not enforced by "roundabout" methods. If you consent to being bound by the statute, it is legal for an authority to enforce the terms of the statute upon you. That's quite straight forward.

Look at it this way: if you have consensual sex with someone tonight, you're not going to get off a rape charge on a "technicality".

 

[capt.sparrow]

However, for what it is worth, there is a view that no tax is payable on legal tender, and there are also exemptions from any perceived tax obligations if your intent is to preserve wealth/purchasing power and not make a profit.

I don't see how you get from Sec115 "A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts" to no tax payable on legal tender.

I may be clutching at straws here but perhaps he means that according to the constitution, only gold and silver can be used as real money, and therefore all forms of taxation on gold and silver as a resource are illegal because gold and silver are actually the only legal money.

 

[mikedm]

if the Common Law rights of individuals were properly enforced in our judicial system that many of the so-called "laws" (which are actually statutes and therefore require the consent of those it supposedly regulates, which basically boils down to these statutes being voluntary) - particularly those relating to taxes, lisencing requirements and fines would be uneforceable in court, since most of them are in fact illegal to enforce. So government has to roundabout methods to "legally" enforce these illegal measures to steal private property by using these tribunal pseudo courts, which are nothing more than kangaroo courts if you really think about it.

Statutes are not enforced by "roundabout" methods. If you consent to being bound by the statute, it is legal for an authority to enforce the terms of the statute upon you. That's quite straight forward.

Look at it this way: if you have consensual sex with someone tonight, you're not going to get off a rape charge on a "technicality".

The problem being most people don't believe they have a choice whether to consent or not (and 'they' know this). Isn't it fraudulent to induce consent by coercing acceptance through threat of imprisonment/fines?? How can uninformed acceptance under threat result in consent?

 

[capt.sparrow]

if the Common Law rights of individuals were properly enforced in our judicial system that many of the so-called "laws" (which are actually statutes and therefore require the consent of those it supposedly regulates, which basically boils down to these statutes being voluntary) - particularly those relating to taxes, lisencing requirements and fines would be uneforceable in court, since most of them are in fact illegal to enforce. So government has to roundabout methods to "legally" enforce these illegal measures to steal private property by using these tribunal pseudo courts, which are nothing more than kangaroo courts if you really think about it.

Statutes are not enforced by "roundabout" methods. If you consent to being bound by the statute, it is legal for an authority to enforce the terms of the statute upon you. That's quite straight forward.

Look at it this way: if you have consensual sex with someone tonight, you're not going to get off a rape charge on a "technicality".

I have to wonder though how government can prove that a citizen - who they are dragging through court who is presumably contesting some tax or fine or what have you - has consented to be bound by the statutes governing said tax or fine etc. ?

Is it some sort of blanket "default consent" perhaps? So perhaps there's some other 'statute" somewhere that says for example that if a driver holds a drivers license, then that automatically opts him/her in to accepting all statutes that the government may cook up relating to road use? But then again where is the proof that the driver consented to this blanket default acceptance of all such statutes? or is this simply implied by him/her having gone through the process of obtaining a license? Again, even if this were so, i dont see how that could be binding ito his Common Law rights.

When it comes to taxation this issue of acceptance of relevant statutes is even more paramount.
How does the government prove that the citizen they are hauling through the court system has consented to be bound by the statutes authorising state seisure of the private assets of said citizen?
I would have thought that surely the fact that the citizen is contesting the tax claim by the ATO or other government agency would automatically show that said citizen does not consent to the relevant statute governing the tax in question?

 

[bron suchecki]

I may be clutching at straws here but perhaps he means that according to the constitution, only gold and silver can be used as real money, and therefore all forms of taxation on gold and silver as a resource are illegal because gold and silver are actually the only legal money.

The problem is that the section only refers to the states, not the federal govt. There are only two references to gold in the constitution http://australianpolitics.com/constitution-aus/text/complete the other being sec91 "91. Nothing in this Constitution prohibits a State from granting any aid to or bounty on mining for gold, silver, or other metals, not from granting, with the consent of both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth expressed by resolution, any aid to or bounty on the production or export of goods."

sec51 says federal govt has power to make laws regarding:

(xii.) Currency, coinage, and legal tender:
(xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:

No mention here of precious metals. It allows for laws about paper money, which is what the RBA (a bank) issues.

 

[Mr Medved]

From what I can gather faux-courts are not bound by precedent. They are however bound by Ch III court decisions - would be awesome for someone to take it to a Full Federal or High Court.

The jurisdiction of all courts in the Commonwealth is derived from Ch III.

The problem being most people don't believe they have a choice whether to consent or not (and 'they' know this). Isn't it fraudulent to induce consent by coercing acceptance through threat of imprisonment/fines?? How can uninformed acceptance under threat result in consent?

Any contract under threat of violence is void. If you are forced to sign under threat of violence sign with "V.C." (Vi Coactus) or "signed under duress and threat of violence", and always write "All Rights Reserved" with your autograph (all common law rights reserved).

BTW fines are unlawful unless issued by a CH III court after a lawful conviction (by jury) with the court's seal assigned to the fine. Those parking and speeding INFRINGEMENT NOTICES are not lawful fines.

all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.

The beauty is this is contained in an imperial act inherited at federation that cannot be repealed by an Act of Parliament nor subjugated lawfully by the judiciary. The only way we get rid of this right is via referendum on the Constitution... so always vote NO at a referendum, they're deceitful bastards when asking referendum questions.

I have to wonder though how government can prove that a citizen - who they are dragging through court who is presumably contesting some tax or fine or what have you - has consented to be bound by the statutes governing said tax or fine etc. ?

Is it some sort of blanket "default consent" perhaps? So perhaps there's some other 'statute" somewhere that says for example that if a driver holds a drivers license, then that automatically opts him/her in to accepting all statutes that the government may cook up relating to road use? But then again where is the proof that the driver consented to this blanket default acceptance of all such statutes? or is this simply implied by him/her having gone through the process of obtaining a license? Again, even if this were so, i dont see how that could be binding ito his Common Law rights.

Australians are not citizens but subjects of HM Queen Elizabeth the Second. The concept of citizenship was introduced in 1948 - unlawfully (no referendum). Up until 1973 we were still considered to be British subjects. I was informed that citizens are members of a republic (which Australians are not), so we cannot be citizens of the Commonwealth; I am yet to verify this claim.

A gentleman who goes by the name of Inspector Rikati has done quite a bit of research in this area and claims you can only be a citizen of a state, and not the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is analagous to the European Union - you are not a citizen of the EU but of your nation. Interestingly the Ballieu ministry in Victoria introduced a Minister for Citizenship last year.

Any form of "default consent" is normally only silence or acceptance, that's why you see so many default judgments because people don't turn up to court. In the case of a licence, that is a contract that you are signing up for, did you read the terms and conditions of that contract carefully? In most cases consent is voluntary (even if you are tricked). Your autograph is a most powerful form of consent. Side note: I was informed that autographs are for sovereign people and signatures are for corporate/legal entities, so be aware of the terms being used!

Whenever you sign for something you are usually making a DECLARATION. Be wary whenever you sign for something, if I have to sign when I don't wish to I either use an 'X' or add V.C. to the sign.

If you are dragged into court for some INFRINGEMENT NOTICE it is a civil matter - not a criminal matter, and is more than likely to be handled by the Magistrates' Court. Civil matters are either torts or contract disputes - I don't see how an INFRINGEMENT NOTICE can be in relation to a tort (i.e., suing someone for negligence, defamation, etc.), so it must be a contract dispute. Some actions you can take:

- Simply state that you do not consent to the jurisdiction of the court, "I do not consent to your jurisdiction".
- Ask the Magistrate what jurisdiction they are claiming. Challenge their claim.
- Ask the Magistrate for their title deed/commission of office. (without it they are masquerading as a Magistrate - criminal offence!)
- Ask the Magistrate if they have sworn allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth the Second.
- Ask the Magistrate where the Queen is represented. All courts are the Queen's courts and the Queen must be present/represented.
- Ask the Magistrate if it is operating under CH III of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. If not it is not a lawful court!
- Ask the Magistrate who is named in the proceeding. 'Your' name will be in ALL CAPS, this is either a form of capitis demenutio (slave class under Roman law) where you are not under Roman law, or a legal fiction - not you!
- Demand a jury. (protected by ELECTIONS in the imperial laws and a NSW court act from 1900)
- If denied a jury ask the Magistrate if they are operating a star chamber.
- Demand the Magistrate operate in federal jurisdiction.
- Demand evidence of a contractual obligation from the vexatious litigant.
- If it is in relation to a speed camera, demand evidence that the speed camera is an accredited measurement device.
- Ask questions to pin the Magistrate into a corner (Marc Stevens has some excellent advice in this regard).
- If the vexatious litigant relies on a State Act created since 1986, it is likely to be assented to in the name of the State and not the Crown - rendering the entire Act void! Sovereign parliaments are unlawful and parliaments cannot enact legislation (i.e., when the preamble states "The Parliament of Victoria enacts:").
- ALWAYS BRING WITNESSES WITH YOU TO COURT.
- Always state that you do not consent.

These notes are all loose-end off-the-top-of-my-head, if you want something more concise and live in Victoria I recommend you attend the CLRG meetings that are held regularly. I know of a guy who drives down from Albury to attend the one in Melbourne each month. They are amazing meetings with a great community atmosphere.

www.clrg.info

As always, DYOH and don't rely on internet posts if you are going to court.

 

[capt.sparrow]

I may be clutching at straws here but perhaps he means that according to the constitution, only gold and silver can be used as real money, and therefore all forms of taxation on gold and silver as a resource are illegal because gold and silver are actually the only legal money.

The problem is that the section only refers to the states, not the federal govt. There are only two references to gold in the constitution http://australianpolitics.com/constitution-aus/text/complete the other being sec91 "91. Nothing in this Constitution prohibits a State from granting any aid to or bounty on mining for gold, silver, or other metals, not from granting, with the consent of both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth expressed by resolution, any aid to or bounty on the production or export of goods."

sec51 says federal govt has power to make laws regarding:

(xii.) Currency, coinage, and legal tender:
(xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:

No mention here of precious metals. It allows for laws about paper money, which is what the RBA (a bank) issues.

if what you say is true then it simply means that the Australian Constitution is inferior to the US one in that the founding fathers of the US at least had the sense to forsee the mayhem that a fiat money system would inevitably lead to. The fact that the US government during the course of the 20th century chose to ignore their constitution simply highlights the illegal nature of said government.

 

[Guest]

Interesting post mr medved. Thanks

 

[Big A.D.]

I have to wonder though how government can prove that a citizen - who they are dragging through court who is presumably contesting some tax or fine or what have you - has consented to be bound by the statutes governing said tax or fine etc. ?

Is it some sort of blanket "default consent" perhaps?

What, apart from living here?

Simply being in a country, such as as this one, makes you subject to the law of the land and that means both "the law of this land as opposed to some other land" and "the law of this land as it is typically applied on a day-to-day basis".

The law (as it is typically applied) includes a lot of stuff that we do simply because it is convenient for the smooth running of the legal system - don't "do the wrong thing" and park in a handicapped space and the local council goons won't "do the wrong thing" and issue you with a parking fine. Both of those actions aren't specifically covered by the Constitution but we generally accept (and therefore consent) to the rule that says able-bodied people shouldn't park in spaces set aside for disabled people because the practicalities living with a disability mean those people need extra assistance from society to go about their lives. If able-bodied people do park in those spaces, they can expect to be reminded of their social obligations by receiving a fine.

As Mr Medved pointed out, we're not forcibly held to many of the "laws" out there. The important difference here is between laws based on malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited) and malum in se (wrong in itself). English common law is almost entirely based on actions that are malum in se - stuff you just don't do because it is clearly and obviously wrong (e.g. murder) - and our Constitution is based on English common law.

Now you can (and people do) argue (sometimes successfully) that they should not be punished for doing something which is merely prohibited rather than downright evil and civil disobedience can be necessary to prevent an authority from infringing the natural rights of individuals, however to say that unless something is codified in the Constitution then any rule or regulation made in relation to it is illegitimate and therefore wrong is, IMHO, a bad argument.

 

[mikedm]

Now you can (and people do) argue (sometimes successfully) that they should not be punished for doing something which is merely prohibited rather than downright evil and civil disobedience can be necessary to prevent an authority from infringing the natural rights of individuals, however to say that unless something is codified in the Constitution then any rule or regulation made in relation to it is illegitimate and therefore wrong is, IMHO, a bad argument.

I thought the Constitution was there to limit the powers of the government. For legislators to act legitimately, legislation/regulations must fall under a head of power and be consistent with their authority under the Constitution otherwise they act ultra vires and the legislation/regulation does not have to be followed.

It may be inconvenient for those who want to regulate and tax everything but it does serve a purpose. Usually the courts will stretch words and reasoning in favour of the government, but occasionally the govt. goes too far. If we want to increase the heads of power there are strict procedures for that. If we vote no tough luck you can't regulate that area because we don't want you to. It is one of the very few democratic powers we have in a 2-party politicised system.

*Sorry this is getting way off topic now..

 

[Big A.D.]

Now you can (and people do) argue (sometimes successfully) that they should not be punished for doing something which is merely prohibited rather than downright evil and civil disobedience can be necessary to prevent an authority from infringing the natural rights of individuals, however to say that unless something is codified in the Constitution then any rule or regulation made in relation to it is illegitimate and therefore wrong is, IMHO, a bad argument.

I thought the Constitution was there to limit the powers of the government. For legislators to act legitimately, legislation/regulations must fall under a head of power and be consistent with their authority under the Constitution otherwise they act ultra vires and the legislation/regulation does not have to be followed.

Yes that's true, but the Commonwealth government still delegates a lot of stuff to other bodies (like the States, as per Ch. 5) and the actions of those other bodies are still considered legitimate (e.g. a State law can dictate how something should or should not be done provided the State law doesn't conflict with Commonwealth law). Even the UK parliament delegated a heap of it's authority to the colonies with the Colonial Laws Validity Act back in 186something and that didn't affect the legitimacy of the United Kingdom claim to sovereignty over Australia at the time.

There is also the accepted principle that convention (precedence) influences the way the government (and therefore the law) may operate in practice. The most well known paradox of our Constitution is probably the fact that it doesn't mention the office of the Prime Minister, yet if you ask anyone who's running the country they'll say "the Prime Minister". Another one is that, under the Constitution, the Governor General could declare war on New Zealand if (s)he wanted to because the GG is actually the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Our adoption of the Westminster system of government (which traces its origins back to the signing of the Magna Carta and was strengthened after the Bill of Rights was passed by the parliament of England in 1689) means we can rely on our past to guide our future. That's a pretty reasonable arrangement and its worked pretty well for hundreds of years.

For that reason, I think the position that unless something is specifically mentioned in the Constitution its okay to do whatever you like is too simplistic to use it as a guide for going about your day-to-day business. For example, do you deliberately park in the handicapped space to preserve your natural rights from being impinged by the illegitimate local council, or do you park a little further away from the elevators so some guy in a wheelchair doesn't have to scrape the paintwork on someone else's car to get in and out while he's doing his shopping? All those little rules and conventions come into being because we all generally find things a little bit better and a little bit easier with them in place. Most of them work, most of the time.

But yeah, if you really have a bone to pick with someone about a parking ticket, yeah, you can challenge it and probably win.

 

[mikedm]

It's not the parking ticket, it's the threat of force behind it. As you said it is albeit a lawfully empty threat, but this makes it worse because it relies upon deception, fear and ignorance of the general public to operate. The ignorance/complicity extends up through the bureaucracy and to those entrapping litigants and making binding decisions to enforce the baseless laws.

I would say it's an unnecessary, irresponsible and immature way of coercing people's behaviour - it cheapens the law, undermines rule of law, and disenfranchises/stresses the population. The means does not justify the end if we value a free, honest, and mature society. This is probably where we disagree.

Anyway with regards to tax, sure we need to pay our fair share, but we must also be able to protect our savings from the hidden tax that is inflation by holding CGT-free precious metals, at least gold, which has mostly only monetary value, IMHO. At this stage, as pointed out above there are steps you can take to minimise CGT.

 

[Smoothcriminal]

Just do what I do; buy cheap and sell it at a loss in silverstacker auctions.

I thought charities were tax exempt? :lol:

 

[Ernster]

What if he have our own business as a sole trader. Our silver profits get tacked onto our working income so couldnt we offset/deduct the silver profits by buying items for the business?

 

[Elemental]

I talked about this in my original post. You can but in order to deduct the losses you must satisfy 1 of the 4 tests (below - copied from the ATO site)


If you meet the income requirement, you can offset a loss from a business against your income from other sources if the business passes one of these tests:

The assessable income test - the business has assessable income of at least $20,000.
The profits test - the business had a profit for tax purposes in three out of the past five years (including the current year).
The real property test - the value of real property, or of an interest in real property, that you used in the business on a continuing basis was at least $500,000.
The other assets test - the value of assets (excluding real property, cars, motor cycles and similar vehicles) you used on a continuing basis in carrying on the business was at least $100,000.

If you can't satisfy one of these then the loss is "non-commercial" and must be carried forward (i.e. it cannot reduce your other taxable income).

Further - I assume when you say "buying items for the business" you are talking about buying silver / gold bars and coins. These things would be included in your purchases and reduce your income but would be treated as trading stock at the end of the year. The way you value that would probably mean your business would show a loss and hence my points above.

 

[Rubbing Elbows]

Wouldn't the tax office have to be able to identify the exact piece of silver that was purchased or sold. Whenever I buy silver from a bullion dealer, they describe it on the receipt as silver coin or silver bar etc, thats it, no name or brand, so how does the tax office know what has been sold & for how much as there is no proof of the identification of the silver being traded...........What silver, that wasn't mine