Love for Life

Looking at the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT legally it doesn't seem to apply to "natural persons" A Forum Posting by natural person
29th November 2007

From initial research “Australian resident” and "resident" as defined within the ACT would only apply to companies, and would not mean “natural persons” or “individuals”. If one follows the definitions in SECT 995.1, it defines “Australian resident” as a “person”, then defines a “person” as a “company”.

Simply stated: An “Australian resident” is a “person” which is a “company”. And does not mean a “natural person” or an “individual”.

Keeping in mind that legal definitions don't always correspond to ordinary English, dictionary terms, or even similar legal terms. But rather, definitions within the ACT supersede all external ones.

Following the legal definitions provided within the ACT. It would appear that section 6.5 defining ordinary income (article 2 & 3) does not extend to “natural persons”, or “individuals”. Rather it seems to only apply to companies. Therefore “individuals” or “natural persons” under the ACT couldn't have any “assessable ordinary income”.

SECT 6.5 of the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997

Income according to ordinary concepts (ordinary income)

(2) If you are an Australian resident, your assessable income includes the * ordinary income you * derived directly or indirectly from all sources, whether in or out of Australia, during the income year.

Definition of “Australian resident”

"Australian resident" means a person who is a resident of Australia for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 .

Definition of “person”

"person" includes a company.

Note: Legally “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterin” holds that “to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative”. In layman's terms, this means that “person” includes a company to the exclusion of all others (i.e. only a company, and not anything else). Legally it would need to state: "includes but not limited to a company" to extend to other entities.

For more research please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVr5-UM2m1k

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oUs2MW6a9aQ

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1997240/s6.5.html

Everyone should be aware of these laws.

------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS

From wakeup
Truth Crusader

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:55 pm

Reply with quote: I still have to watch that youtube video, however people are classified as corporations.

It's easy to see how corporations are legal entities, they can sue and be sued etc, like McDonalds Mclibel case, for more info on this see the doco the corporation

People being legal entities has to, from what i hear browsing on the internet so it might not be true has to do with the govt using all capital letters to spell your name, JOE BLOGGS is the legal entity for Joe Bloggs.

I'm not very informed on this but there is info about the capital letter thing out there.
Back to top

------------------------

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:04 am

Reply with quote: wakeup wrote: However people are classified as corpoorations.

Its easy to see how corporations are legal entities, they can sue and be sued etc, like mc donalds mclibel case, for more info on this see the doco the corporation

People can only be sued as their corporate "straw man" if and when they lay claim to being that entity. It's very interesting how it all works and most of the time people are tricked into making that claim. Even your silence is considered as making claim to the corporate entity. Watch the video. I guarantee you will be amazed!

According to the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 & 1997 the definition for person is:
Quote:

"person" includes a company

If you look at the definition for company it states:

Quote:

"company" means:

(a) a body corporate; or

(b) any other unincorporated association or body of persons;

but does not include a partnership or a * non‑entity joint venture.

Note: If a law/act has specific definitions, they override all external definitions. So although law dictionaries state that a person can mean both a natural person and a corporation, the definition within the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT overrides this, and specifically defines a person/persons as a company, excluding all other entities. So anywhere person is stated could safely be replaced with company.

If the act defined the word dog as: "dog" includes a cat. It would mean a dog is a cat and nothing else. Quite different from normal English. They call it "Word magic". And it is very deceptive for the layperson.

Interestingly the only place natural person is mentioned is within the definition for individual:
Quote: "individual" means a natural person.

So the definition Australian resident does not include individual, but person:

Quote: "Australian resident" means a person who is a resident of Australia for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 .

Why didn't they say "means a person or individual who is a resident of Australia". Or change the definition of person to include natural persons?

Definitions:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1997240/s995.1.htm...

Very deceptive to the untrained eye.

Watch the video, and your eyes will be open to these deceptions.

I don't think anyone has argued exemption from Australian income tax from this point. Some have claimed it's unconstitutional, which from what I can see doesn't seem to be true.

----------------------------------

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:45 pm

Reply with quote: DO YOU HAVE TO LODGE A TAX RETURN?

Looking at the reasons in Tax Pack 2007. They are very carefully worded to mislead natural persons into thinking they are liable to submit a tax return, while the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT indicates only companies are liable. Once you sign/accept and submit a tax return, you can be held to the tax return contract, and be fined for any breaches.

Quote: You were an Australian resident for tax purposes

Is mentioned in reasons 1, 4 & other reasons. Which most people would assume is them. However they state later in the document that:

Quote: The standards the Tax Office uses to determine your residency status are not the same as those used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship or Centrelink.

Would this be because the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT defines "Australian Resident" as a "person", which is defined as a "company"?

-----------------------------

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:08 pm

Reply with quote: DO YOU NEED TO LODGE A NON-LODGMENT ADVICE OR EVEN A TAX RETURN?

From tax pack 2007

Quote: find a reason that applies to your circumstances, you have to lodge a tax return. You do not have to read any further on this page – go to page 5.

We need to find the reason to lodge a tax return. So if you can't find the reason, you *SHOULD* lodge a non-lodgment advice. But this seems optional.

Quote: If you do not need to lodge a tax return, you should complete the non-lodgment advice on the next page and send it to us unless one of the following applies to you

Notice it says "should".

--------------------------------------

Erik - Truth Crusader

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:36 am

Reply with quote: Interesting research, have there ever been any cases on this?

_________________

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.

--------------------------

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:53 pm

Reply with quote: Erik wrote: Interesting research, have there ever been any cases on this?

To my knowledge, there has not been an Australian income tax case/ruling which argued that "natural persons"/individuals are not liable to declare ordinary income (according to sec 6.5) because the definition for person = company, and not "natural persons"/individuals.

I've seen a few that argued that it's unconstitutional, which haven't gotten far. From what I can see taxation is constitutional.

Even if there was a case, I doubt it'd be published anywhere.

I'm not about to argue the case with the ATO (although I believe it is valid) as I don't really pay that much tax anyhow. In fact, with the FTB and other benefits, I'm probably be getting money from the ATO. But would be interested to see this case put to the ATO, and see what their reply would be?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS POSTED TO THE LOVE FOR LIFE WEBSITE

Re: Is this a Joke: Tue, 12/11/2007 - 22:32 — Anonymous:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/809#comment-302

Brilliant site. Although you might want to go easy on the people that think you're crazy, it takes time and research before people might see things clearly enough to make an informed comment.

Haven't yet had time to study your family circumstances in full, however I am fully aware of the depth of corruption in the banking system, and the politicians/judges that support them. And nothing would surprise me now. I spent many years working as an employee earning over $110,000 per annum, paying over $30,000 in taxes every year without ever realizing what was really going on.

I always knew something wasn't right and was dumbfounded after discovering just how corrupt the whole system is, from banks to judges, to politicians. I mean everyone knows there's a certain level of corruption, but not one in a million can see what's really going on right before their eyes, unless they're shown (myself included). After seeing the whole picture, and how simple it all is, it's mind numbing!

If I had have seen this site two years ago, I would have called you crazy too. But now I'm donating $10, thanking you for the great work and hope you continue the site.

One more thing, you can read some research I've done on the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT at:

http://www.infowars.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1530

Feel free to copy it an use it here. I've tried to get answers from the ATO with some really strange/funny responses.

Cheers,

A Natural Person, who doesn't want to give away their name

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"ATO & "person" definitions - Wed, 12/19/2007 - 17:18 — Anonymous:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/809#comment-308

Having worked for years in justice administration, and with substantial practical experience in interpretation of legislation, your proposed argument around the definition of 'person' as defined in the Income Assessment Act 1997 has substantive flaws.

Where the Act reads 'person includes company', this does not mean a person IS ONLY a company, much as a definition of a car would include wheels, but the wheel is not the car.

Take the Acts Interpretation Act to heart.

This is not to say that there are not loopholes in the Income Assessment Act. There are.

Tax IS optional if one can present the case properly.

Keep the thought process going!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Person Includes a Company - Fri, 12/21/2007 - 22:47 — Anonymous:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/809#comment-309

I'm afraid you're legal interpretation is completely wrong, and "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterin” does preclude the inclusion of other entities?

You're example of the car including more than just wheels holds perfectly true for standard English, but falls short for a legal, legislative definition. In which case defining " 'Car' includes wheels" would in fact be stating a car is a wheel, and vice versa. This is just another way words are used to do harm and deceive people, including you and me.

In addition, why would the writers go to great lengths to include "natural persons" in other definitions (individual). Why not simply state, "person" includes a natural person, a company .... ? They are either grossly incompetent, or trying to hide something.

Can you provide your reasonings as to why you believe a "person" according to the Income Assessment Act 1997 can include "natural persons"?

Note: "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterin” holds that “to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little more info - Sat, 12/22/2007 - 19:44 — Anonymous:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/809#comment-311

A common rule of statutory interpretation is the doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. This doctrine means "[t]he inclusion of one is the exclusion of another?

This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Black's Law Dictionary 763 (6th Ed. 1990).)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is a natural person the same as a wise fool, or a free slave? - Thu, 12/13/2007 - 09:11 — Anonymous:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/809#comment-303

Hi Natural Person.

What is an unnatural person?

I know the gradual temptation is to rebut what has been created as a term to lock men and women into statutes, however saying you are a natural person is an oxymoron (contradiction in terms-e.g. wise fool, female man etc).

A person is by definition unnatural or artificial, so even in their statutes/acts they try to reason that natural person is a man or woman, but nothing can be further from the truth.

Why did they not say man/woman in the statutes?

Because they cannot tax our labour, only the fiat money created by our (mankind’s) energy via our “person”.

Same as human being. The definition is a monster.

Are we monsters?

Look into first in law definitions of words we now take for granted and assume their meanings.

Refs:

http://georgegordon.org ; http://georgegordon.org/Radio_Archives.htm

http://famguardian.org (get Blacks 2nd Law Dictionary)

http://www.legal-dictionary.biz

Ant - globalsov @ gmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Ant - Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:07 — Anonymous:
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/809#comment-304

Great info Ant. And thanks for the links, these sites have a ton of great info.

Another great doco you might be interested in:

Search youtube.com for "Intro to your Human Rights 1/20"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oUs2MW6a9aQ

Cheers,

Me (Natural Person)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Arthur Cristian - Love For Life 29th October 2008 9.03am

Check this ATO Posting here: (cut & pasted below) - ATO: Evidence Of Australian Tax Office Fraud - Australians: "YOU HAVE ALL BEEN RIPPED OFF": http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5797

Most Importantly, check out all the attachments provided as well.

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page one.jpg - 1.23 MB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page two.jpg - 1.05 MB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page three.jpg - 1.02 MB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page four.jpg - 1.18 MB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO supporting evidence.doc - 88 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO report.doc - 24.5 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO Questionnaire.doc - 31.5 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax notice.doc - 24.5 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO Resized ABN fraud 700x700.jpg - 66.02 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO - THE CORPORATIONS LAW.doc - 1.13 MB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page one Resized.jpg - 70.48 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page two Resized.jpg - 51.71 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page three Resized.jpg - 51.84 KB

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/ATO tax questionaire page four Resized.jpg - 64.34 KB

Evidence Of Australian Tax Office Fraud - ATO

If it can be shown that there is fraud in the establishment of an obligation or contract, then it must be rendered null and void by way of full disclosure.

With all contracts, especially debt based ones such as mortgages, there has to be an equal exchange, equal consideration to support the contract, ie, the signature cancels out whatever the other party is offering.

Contract Void By Account Of Fraud Text has also been cut & pasted further down in this document

In the Corporations Law (see attached at bottom of this document) the definition is as follows:

``sole trader'' means a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange; History
Definition of ``sole trader'' amended by No 110 of 1990, Sch 1 (effective 18 December 1990).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here Is The Evidence That Any Australian Can Now Use To Stop Paying Taxes And Immediately Demand The Return Of All The Money They Gave To The ATO Since Day One.

Australians: "YOU HAVE ALL BEEN RIPPED OFF"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: All original documents are attached below to view any fine print.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT ON QUESTIONNAIRE

This report is made the 21st day of October 2005 in relation to the Questionnaire provided to Cameron Meizer, Manager of the Australian Taxation Office (hereafter “ATO”) this morning.

As outlined in the abovementioned Questionnaire, the purpose was to gain a better knowledge of the relationship (if any) that exists between the ATO and the Author.

To facilitate this, the Author, seeking answers, requested specific information from the ATO relating to authority, obligation, and definitions of “terms” as used by the ATO. This included background information relevant to the enquiry.

Prior to the agreement by Mr. Meizer to submit to the Questionnaire, he was provided with a “sample copy” of the Questionnaire for his information which clearly outlined the purpose and content, and allowed him to easily follow along with the questions being asked.

During the Questionnaire, the Author personally asked the questions to Mr. Meizer, at the ATO, with his consent, and personally took note of his answers, under Mr. Meizer’s supervision in RED pen as to distinguish the original copy.

Upon completion of the Questionnaire, Mr. Meizer refused to provide his signature. When asked for the reason Mr. Meizer stated that “There was no need to sign in the official capacity of his job”. This was noted on the Questionnaire.

The Author claims that all relevant information and conditions were outlined in the Questionnaire, and that no information was withheld. Mr Meizer was also permitted to photocopy the Questionnaire upon completion for his records.

It is with this knowledge and attached copy of said Questionnaire that the Author states the following claims and conclusions.

1. Mr. Meizer, is not qualified in his position as Manager of the ATO in regard to the information contained in the abovementioned Questionnaire.

2. Mr. Meizer is an employee of the ATO, and is not personally employed by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.

3. Mr. Meizer is not aware that “under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) income tax as levied under the relevant rating act is, when assessed and the assessment is notified to a taxpayer, a debt which is due to the Commonwealth, and payable to the Commissioner of Taxation: s 208. It is not payable to the Australian Taxation Office, whatever that may be. (Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Levick)

4. The Federal Court of Australia does not recognise the ATO.

5. Mr. Meizer claims the ATO would generally “capture” a debt payable to the Commonwealth, if there was a debt with another Commonwealth agency.

6. Mr. Meizer does not know if the ATO can sue a flesh and blood person.

7. Mr. Meizer is not qualified to discuss an ABN number (including it’s purpose, meaning, relationship to a flesh and blood human etc.

8. Mr. Meizer is not qualified to define an ENTITY, even though a large number of documents in the ATO office, of which he is the manager, relate to the obligations of an ENTITY.

9. Mr. Meizer does not know if a person is a flesh and blood human.

10. Mr. Meizer has not read THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 as he claims it is not relevant, even though it describes a SOLE TRADER as “a member organisation of a securities exchange.”

11. Mr. Meizer however explained that I can be a “SOLE TRADER” as an INDIVIDUAL” with an ABN.

12. Mr. Meizer does not know the meaning of “person” or “PERSON(S)”.

13. Mr Meizer has read the Income Tax Act 1986, but further commented off record that “he had not committed it to memory, as it was quite thick”.

14. Mr Meizer claims “a TAXPAYER is anyone who is required to pay tax”

15. Mr. Meizer is not qualified as to whether a flesh and blood human being can be transformed into an “ENTITY” or “TAXPAYER” by voluntary agreement or not.

16. Mr. Meizer acknowledges that the information he provided is in no way false, misleading or fraudulent in any way, under oath of office (if any).

17. Mr. Meizer acknowledges that by not signing, it may be assumed that he is not qualified to provide that information or that the information given is invalid or in some way misleading, fraudulent
or incorrect.

18. Mr. Meizer has not read “How to understand an Act of Parliament” - 8th Edition by DJ Gifford
and Kenneth H. Gifford”.

19. Mr. Meizer is not qualified to establish a “relationship” between the ATO and the Author.

20. As Mr. Meizer is the person of highest Authority, the Author must assume that no other person at that office is qualified in the matter either.

CONCLUSION

In consideration of the possibility that no-one at the ATO office managed by Mr. Cameron Meizer is qualified to establish a relationship between the ATO and the Author, and considering that the Federal Court does not recognise the ATO, the Author contests the relevance and purpose of said office and recommends it’s immediate closure.

The Author states that until such time as undeniable proof is provided to him as to the existence of a “relationship” between the Author as a flesh and blood human being and the ATO, the Author must assume that there is none. The Author, having taken as much care as possible to investigate this matter, cannot therefore be held responsible for any claim of TAX avoidance, or otherwise, as he has taken reasonable steps to establish the facts. The Author claims that in the event that no relationship can be proven to exist between the ATO and the Author, any prior relationship must therefore have been fraudulent, and is void.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

NOTICE

Australian Taxation Office (ATO)
Attn: Erin Holland
Deputy Commissioner for Taxation
P.O Box 9990
Chermside QLD 4032

RE: ACCOUNT: (STRAWMAN NAME) a.k.a (TAX FILE NUMBER)

Date:

I, ( real name) have recently learned that I, with the status of being a full liability free will man, and with no intention or knowledge of being any form or type of incorporated entity or of being a commercial “also known as”, or of my being a ward of the Crown, am not a "person" - a limited liability legal fiction.

I therefore believe I am not a “legal entity” known as a ‘taxpayer’ subject to the Income Tax Act of Australia.

Further, I have learned that I have been defrauded by the Crown (The Commonwealth of Australia) and deceptively induced by the propaganda of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), into making a presumed contract of incorporation.

This takes the form of a presumed contract with the Crown by status change to a limited liability legal fiction called a “person” by my having filed a return of income.

The presumption being that my status as a flesh and blood man was changed into a "person resident in Australia" and a "taxpayer"; and therefore supposedly making me subject to income tax by that assumed contract.

This act by the Crown [Federal Government of Australia] is believed by me to be a violation of contract law and is a trespass upon my life and my property.

As the injured party, I hereby revoke and void any such supposed or assumed contract, past, present and future; and, hereby declare my sovereign status as a flesh and blood full liability free will man with absolute rights under Anglo-Saxon Common Law.

I hereby make claim upon any item of value in commerce collected, banked or invested by (STRWAMAN NAME) (a.k.a TAX FILE NUMBER) as agent in commerce resulting from the exchange of my labour and/or skills with any party.

As (STRAWMAN NAME) is a created fiction, I hereby disclaim any responsibility for any debts of (STRAWMAN NAME) (and any numerical representation of it as assigned by the ATO e.g: ABN, TFN), incurred as debts owed to the Crown.

I hereby request that you pay back to me forthwith any supposed withholding tax upon (STRAWMAN NAME) which, in fact, has been withheld from my wages as collected by (STRAWMAN NAME) as agent in commerce; and, all supposed income tax which (STRAWMAN NAME) paid over to the ATO on the grounds that I was fraudulently induced to pay it and was thus unlawfully deprived of that money - my private property.

If you believe I am in error by my above statements, I request that your response is limited to rebuttal, point by point, by mail in person and that you do not allow any harassment of me by ATO agents or allow any violation of my common law property and privacy rights.

I, (real name), a free will full liability man, declare in the presence of the undersigned Notary Public that the above statements made by myself are believed to be true and correct.

Real Name and Signature

Reserving all Inalienable rights, waving none ever, in my correct capacity as beneficiary of the original jurisdiction.

Notary witness and stamp

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH

The following information is provided in relation to and support of the Questionnaire and Report, and has been personally conducted by the Author.

The definitions were found in Australian Government and Commonwealth documentation including Acts and Laws, and further clarification was sought as per the advice in the book “How to understand an Act of Parliament” - 8th Edition by DJ Gifford and Kenneth H. Gifford.

Chapter 2a” reads:

“In finding the right meaning to give to an Act of Parliament, the reader must give close attention to the meaning of each word that is used. This will often involve turning to the judicial dictionaries or to the standard dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary to find the meanings given to individual words in the section.”

The following common dictionaries were referenced as per that advice:

- Oxford Australian words and their origins 1989
- The Oxford English Dictionary
- The Collins Australian Dictionary 5th Edition
- Australian Oxford Dictionary 2nd Edition
- Chambers Dictionary 9th Edition
- The Macquarie Dictionary 3rd Edition
- Wikipedia Online Dictionary

RELEVANCY

The Author disagrees with Mr. Meizer’s comment that the Corporations Act 2001 is not relevant to his position on the following grounds:

The ATO provides advice and collects information relating to obligations under the Income Tax Act 1986. It promotes and supports legislation and laws made by the Government and Commonwealth of Australia.

The “Taxpayers Charter – In Detail” outlines “the relationship we seek with the community”, and “the more you know and understand these factors, the more confident you’ll be in dealing with us.”

UNDERSTANDING

The Author hereby states that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

“Under”: In or to a position below or beneath something. In or into a condition of subjection, subordination, or unconsciousness.

“Standing” : A position from which one may assert or enforce legal rights and duties.

ACTS AND LAWS

“ACT”: A legal document codifying the result of deliberations of a committee or society or legislative body.

THE CORPORATIONS LAW

The following extracts are from the Corporations Law 1989.

``Act'' means:

(a) except in relation to a jurisdiction - an Act of the Commonwealth; and

(b) in relation to a jurisdiction:

(i) in the case of a State - an Act passed by the Parliament of that State; or

(ii) in the case of the Northern Territory - an Act of the Northern Territory; or

(iii) in the case of the Capital Territory - an Act or Ordinance of the Capital Territory; act includes thing.

LAW: A legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity; "there is a law against kidnapping"

``Law'' , in the case of a reference to this Law or to the Corporations Law of a jurisdiction, has the additional meaning given by sections 8 and 8A;

SOLE TRADER

``sole trader'' means a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange;

``member organisation'' means:

(a) in relation to a securities exchange or stock exchange:

(i) a person who is recognised under the business rules of the exchange as a suitably qualified participant of the exchange and who carries on a business of dealing in securities otherwise than in partnership; or

(ii) a partnership that is recognised under the business rules of the exchange as a suitably qualified participant of the exchange and that carries on a business of dealing in securities; and

(b) in relation to a futures organisation:

(i) a member of the futures organisation that carries on a business of dealing in futures contracts otherwise than in partnership; or

(ii) a partnership that the futures organisation recognises as a member organisation, that carries on a business of dealing in futures contracts and each partner in which is a member of some futures organisation;

``securities exchange'' means:

(a) in a provision (other than a provision of this Chapter or Chapter 6 or 7) for the purposes of which a regulation is in force defining that expression - a securities exchange as defined by that regulation; or

(b) in Chapter 6:

(i) the Exchange;

(ii) Australian Stock Exchange (Adelaide) Limited;

(iii) Australian Stock Exchange (Brisbane) Limited;

(iv) Australian Stock Exchange (Hobart) Limited;

(v) Australian Stock Exchange (Melbourne) Limited;

(vi) Australian Stock Exchange (Perth) Limited;

(vii) Australian Stock Exchange (Sydney) Limited; or

(viii) a body corporate that is declared by the regulations to be a securities exchange for the purposes of that Chapter; or

(c) in this Chapter, section 773, 778, 779, 874 or 879, subsection 920(1) or Chapter 6D:

(i) a stock exchange; or

(ii) a body corporate in relation to which an approval under section 770 is in force; or

(d) in any other provision of Chapter 7:

(i) a local stock exchange; or

(ii) an approved securities organisation;

ATO APPLICATION FORMS

The application form entitled “ABN registration for individuals (sole traders)” which is available at most ATO offices is hereby challenged as misleading and fraudulent for the following reasons:

1. The title makes a formal definition of an “individual” as a “sole trader” by the addition of brackets, thereby informing anyone who considers themselves an individual that they are to be classified as a sole trader by the ATO and the Commonwealth of Australia.

2. If a “sole trader” is an “individual”, then the definition of an individual is:

“a person who is a member organisation of a securities exchange.”
(Corporations Law 1989)

3. Since a flesh and blood human being is not an organisation, then in this context, a person must be a corporation.

4. Since a person in this context means a corporation, then an individual in this context is also a corporation. (PERSON(S).

It is already common knowledge that there are two kinds of “person”.

DEFINITIONS

Person: (noun)

1. An individual human being.

2. A human being or corporation recognised in law as having certain rights and obligations.
Person: In the sense of an individual human being.

People (Persons): A human being (natural person) or a corporation (artificial person) regarded as having rights and duties under the law.

Chambers Dictionary 9th Edition

Person:

1. An individual human being.

2. A human being or a corporation recognised in law as having certain rights and obligations.

Collins Australian Dictionary 5th Edition

Person:

1. A human being, whether a man, woman or child.

2. Any human being or artificial body of people, having rights and duties before the law.

Macquarie Dictionary 3rd Edition

None of the dictionaries referenced here describe an individual as a “sole trader”.

This is a fraudulent and misleading definition which is not common to the English language.

INCOME TAX ACT 1986

SECTION 17 LEVY OF INCOME TAX

17(1) [Levied on taxable incomes of certain persons]

“Subject to this Act, income tax at the rates declared by the Parliament is levied, and shall be paid, for the financial year that commenced on 1 July 1965 and for each succeeding financial year, upon the taxable income derived during the year of income by any person, whether a resident or a non-resident”

(h) the term ``person'' includes an individual, a company and any other body of persons;

TAXATION

TAX: A charge, especially a pecuniary burden which is imposed by authority. Specifically: A charge or burden laid upon persons or property for the support of a government.

LEVY: The act of levying or collecting by authority; as, the levy of troops, taxes, etc.

TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT

(SELF ASSESSMENT) ACT 1992 No. 101 of 1992

Public rulings - class of persons

"14ZAAF. The Commissioner may make a public ruling on the way in which, in the Commissioner's opinion, a tax law or tax laws would apply to a class of persons in relation to an arrangement.
Application for private ruling about own tax

"14ZAF. A person may apply to the Commissioner for a ruling on the way in which, in the Commissioner's opinion, a tax law or tax laws would apply to the person in respect of a year of income in relation to an arrangement.

CONTRACT LAW

An application can be considered a contract.

For a valid contract to be enforced, there are a number of basic rules which must be followed:

“A contract is any legally-enforceable promise or set of promises made by one party to another and, as such, reflects the policies represented by freedom of contract. In the civil law, contracts are considered to be part of the general law of obligations.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Basic common law contract law addresses four sets of issues:

1. When and how is a contract formed?

2. When may a party escape obligations of a contract (such as a contract formed under duress or because of a misrepresentation)?

3. What is the meaning and effect to be given to the terms of a contract?

4. What is the remedy to be given for breach of a contract?

CONTRACT FORMATION

Generally, formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration (see also consideration under English law).
Escape from contract: A party may in some cases escape obligations established by a contract for one of the following reasons:

· Mutual or unilateral mistake as to a basic assumption upon which the contract was made

· Misrepresentation of facts inducing one of the parties to enter the contract

· Duress inducing one of the parties to enter the contract

· Lack of capacity to contract (such as infancy, influence of drugs, alcohol or mental illness)

· Unconscionability

· Violation of a public policy

· Absence of a writing evidencing formation of the contract if the Statute of Frauds requires such a writing

· Performance of the contract becomes impossible or extremely difficult or costly by virtue of events occurring after the contract is formed

· The principal purpose of the contract is substantially frustrated by virtue of events occurring after the contract is formed

In some situations, a collateral contract may exist.

MEANING AND EFFECT OF CONTRACT TERMS

Many contract disputes involve a disagreement between the parties about what terms in the contract require each party to do or refrain from doing. Hence, many rules of contract law pertain to interpretation of terms of a contract that are vague or ambiguous. The parol evidence rule limits what things can be taken into account when trying to interpret a contract.

Privity: In general, only parties to a contract may sue for the breach of a contract.

VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS

For a contract to be valid, it must meet the following criteria:

· Mutual agreement - (see main article offer and acceptance): There must be an express or implied agreement. The essential requirement is that there be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement. For a contract based on offer and acceptance to be enforced, the terms must be capable of determination in a way that it is clear that the parties assent was given to the same terms. The terms, like the manifestation of assent itself, are determined objectively.

· Consideration: There must be consideration (see also consideration under English law) given by all the parties, meaning that every party is conferring a benefit on the other party or himself sustaining a recognizable detriment, such as a reduction of the party's alternative courses of action where the party would otherwise be free to act with respect to the subject matter without any limitation.

· Competent, Adult (Sui Juris) Parties: Both parties must have the capacity to understand the terms of the contract they are entering into, and the consequences of the promises they make. For example, animals, minor children, and mentally disabled individuals do not have the capacity to form a contract, and any contracts with them will be considered void or voidable. Although corporations are technically legal fictions, they are considered persons under the law, and thus fit to engage in contracts.

For adults, most jurisdictions have statutes declaring that the capacity of parties to a contract is presumed, so that one resisting enforcement of a contract on grounds that a party lacked the capacity to be bound bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of capacity.

· Proper Subject Matter: The contract must have a lawful purpose. A contract to commit murder in exchange for money will not be enforced by the courts. It is void ab initio, meaning "from the beginning."

· Mutual Right to Remedy: Both parties must have an equal right to remedy upon breach of the terms by the other party

· Mutual Obligation to Perform: Both Parties must have some obligation to fulfill to the other. This can be distinct from consideration, which may be an initial inducement into the contract.

EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONTRACTS

A contract can be either an express contract or an implied contract. An express contract is one in which the terms are expressed verbally, either orally or in writing. An implied contract is one in which some of the terms are not expressed in words.

Implied in fact or implied in law

An implied contract can either be implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a air price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.

QUASI-CONTRACT

A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract; rather, it is a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other. For example, an unconscious patient treated by a doctor at the scene of an accident has not agreed (either expressly or by implication) to pay the doctor for emergency services, but the patient would be unjustly enriched by the doctor's services were the patient not required to compensate the doctor.

The rules by which many contracts are governed are provided in specialized statutes that deal with particular subjects. Most countries, for example, have statutes which deal directly with sale of goods, lease transactions and trade practices. For example, most American states have adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates contracts for the sale of goods.

There are also many acts around the world which deal with specific types of transactions and businesses. For example, the states of California and New York in the U.S. have statutes that govern the provision of services to customers by health studios, and the UK has the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which governs the contracts between sellers and buyers.

CONCLUSION

It is the Authors conclusion and suggestion that as the ATO is not recognized by the Federal Court, and as it is common ground that there was no notice of gazettal published which related to any change of name of a department giving rise to the Australian Taxation Office, and as the ATO currently promotes and supplies documentation which is of a fraudulent and misleading nature, and if Mr. Meizer is indicative of the management of the ATO in general, then the Author suggests the immediate closure of all ATO offices, pending further review.

DISCLAIMER

The Author acknowledges and respects the copyright as understated. Any quotations from the copyrighted material has been reproduced unaltered, and is intended as research only, non commercially, and does not intend to infringe upon said copyright in any way.

© 2002, Commonwealth of Australia

The material available through Australian Law Online has been provided by a variety of Commonwealth, State, and Territory Government agencies and those non-government bodies having been identified as relevant to Australian law and justice issues.

The Commonwealth of Australia retains copyright in all material on the site that is authored by the Commonwealth. Copyright in the material provided by other government and non-government bodies belongs to those bodies.

The material contained on this web site is intended for your general use and information. You may display, download, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. You may distribute any copies of downloaded material in unaltered, complete form only. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

Without Prejudice. All Rights Reserved. 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Contracts Void On Account Of Fraud

§ 620. 1st. Fraud has been defined to be "every kind of artifice employed by one person for the purpose of deceiving another," and this is sufficiently descriptive of fraud.1 The courts, however, have strenuously refused to attach any exact definition to the term, or to lay down any except general rules in respect to it. For fraud is as difficult to define as it is easy to perceive; and any positive definition or rigid rule would be easily evaded by craft, so as to place cases manifestly fraudulent beyond its exact limits. Through this wise abstinence, therefore, fraud remains undefined and unlimited by any forms, but is to be inferred from the special circumstances of every case. Wherever it occurs, it vitiates the transaction tainted by it, both in law and equity. No agreement, although it be apparently fair, and in compliance with the formalities of law, can be enforced, if it be essentially unfair and fraudulent. For a contract to be binding, must be not only within the letter, but also within the spirit of law. And unless it be made in good faith, and free from the stain of fraud and imposition, it will be spurned from the threshold of every legal tribunal.2 But a contract voidable for fraud, and not void, remains valid until rescinded.3

1 The following definitions of fraud were given in the Roman law: '* Do-lum malum Servius quidem ita definit, machinationem quandam alterius decipiendi causa, cum aliud simulatur, et aliud agitur. Labeo autem posse [et] sine simulatione id agi, ut quis circumveniatur: posse et sine dolo malo, aliud agi, aliud simulari; sicuti faciunt, qui per ejusmodi dissimulationem deserviant, et tuentur vel sua vel aliena. Itaque ipse sic definiit, dolum malum esse omnem calliditatem, fallaciam, machinationem ad circumveni-endum, fallendum, decipiendum alterum adhibitam. Labeonis definitio vera est." Dig. Lib. 4, tit. 3,1. 1, § 2.

* See Fermor's Case, 3 Co. 77; Bright v. Eynon, 1 Burr. 390; Foxcraft v. Devonshire, 1 W. Bl. 193. and cases there cited; Ludlow v. Gill, 1 Chip. 49; Duncan v. M'Cullough, 4 S. & R. 483; Dingley v. Robinson, 5 Greenl. 127; Ferguson v. Carrington, 9 B. & C. 59.

* Reese River Silver Mining Co. v. Smith, Law R. 4 H. L. 64 (1869).

§ 621. It is not necessary that the fraud should arise from either party personally. The fraud of an authorized agent will invalidate a contract entered into by him in behalf of his principal. Thus, where an agent sold a picture belonging to his principal, and knowingly permitted the vendee to be deceived in relation to a fact which would have materially influenced his judgment, the contract was held to be void as against the purchaser.1 And where an agent has made a contract with a third person, although he have transcended the real limits of his authority, yet if the principal ratify it, and make the contract his own by availing himself thereof, he is liable in like manner as if he had personally made the contract. If, therefore, the agent have made misrepresentations, the principal is bound thereby; for the latter cannot ratify the contract, and avoid the responsibility of the representations which formed its basis, but he must avoid or ratify the contract in toto?

1 Doe v. Martin, 4 T. R. 39; Fitzherbert v. Mather, 1 T. R. 12; Hill v. Gray, 1 Stark. 434; Cornfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. & W. 358. See Fox v. Mackreth, 2 Bro. C. C. 420. In Cornfoot v. Fowke, supra, the plea was that the defendant had been induced to enter into the agreement sued on, by the fraud and covin of the plaintiff. The evidence proved nothing to support that plea; for the plaintiff had merely put the house into the hands of an agent to be let at a stipulated rent; he had neither himself stated, nor authorized the agent to state, any thing false or deceptive. It did not appear that the employer had not told the agent and desired him to apprise the purchaser. It was the over-zeal of the agent for which the principal was not to suffer. The court held that the plea was not made out by evidence which merely showed the agent to have stated what he believed to be true; viz., that there was no objection attaching to the house. But if the defence had rested, not on the allegation of fraud, but simply upon the ground of misrepresentation, or concealment on the part of the principal, the decision might have been different. See the interesting case of The National Exchange Co. v. Drew, 2 Macq. 145 (1855).

2 See Fitzsimmons v. Joslin, 21 Vt. 129; National Exchange Co. v. Drew, 2 Macq. 103; 32 Eng. Law & Eq. 1; Hough v. Richardson, 3 Story, 689. In this case, Mr. Justice Story said: "The sale, then, being made by Moulton, not as himself the owner, which he was not, but as the agent of the owners, it follows, that they are bound by his representations made at determination to the other party, within reasonable time after his discovery of the fraud.1 And if, with knowledge of the fraud, he acquiesce in the contract expressly; or bring an action on the contract;2 or do any act importing an intention to stand by it; or remain silent under circumstances which plainly indicate a continuing assent thereto, - he cannot afterwards avoid it; for, practically, no man is injured, if he know of the deceit which is practised, and consent to it, since the deceit becomes then an agreed fact of the case.8 If, therefore, he make a compromise of the whole matter, or release the other party from liability, or expressly waive all right to proceed against him, he is bound thereby as by a new agreement.4 So, also, if he treat the subject-matter as his own, as by selling or leasing, he cannot avoid the contract on the ground of fraud, even although he should afterwards discover some new incident to the same fraud, making it more to his injury than he supposed.5 So, also, if, when a contract is made for work to be done at a stipulated price, and it is discovered, before the work is commenced, that there has been such a misrepresentation as to its value as to afford to the party engaging a ground to repudiate the contract, yet if he do not complain, but prosecute the work, he can demand no more than the contract price.6 But so long as he remains in ignorance that he has been defrauded, his conduct will not be considered as importing such an acquiescence therein as to deprive him of taking advantage of the fraud within reasonable time after his actual discovery thereof.7 Nor does it matter, as to his right of redence in rebutter of fraud, or greatly to change the circumstances of the case.1 But if, in addition to the lapse of time, the party claiming to recover had the means of knowledge, he must plainly show that he has not been guilty of laches, or he cannot recover.2 It is not, however, considered as laches in a party not to proceed immediately to verify representations, on the basis of which he makes a contract, but he will be allowed reasonable time to do so.8 But where a man is guilty of gross laches, in not employing means of knowledge within his reach, and proceeds to treat the subject-matter as his own, and to sell it, or use it, for his advantage and to its injury, he could not claim to set his contract aside, even in equity, on the ground of fraud. A fortiori, if a man be cognizant of all the circumstances, and do not complain, but deal with the other party as if he had no case against him, he would, as has been said, "build up, from day to day, a wall of protection for such opponent, which will probably defeat any attack on him." 4 And it has been held that executed contracts tainted with fraud are also binding.5

Link to this document: http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-Treatise/Contracts...

This section is from the book "A Treatise On The Law Of Contracts", by William W. Story: http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-Treatise/index.htm...

Also available from Amazon: A Treatise On The Law Of Contracts: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1584776188?ie=UTF8&tag=theultimatlearna...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

QUESTIONNAIRE

This Questionnaire has been compiled to gain a better knowledge of the relationship (if any) between the Australian Taxation Office (hereafter “ATO”), it’s Agents, Representatives, Employees and the undersigned witness (hereafter “Author”).

The Author claims advice and assistance is offered by the ATO as follows:

Page 08 of the TAXPAYERS CHARTER – IN DETAIL (SECTION C) states:
“You’re entitled to receive professional service and assistance from us.”
and “we provide advice, information and assistance to help you understand and meet your tax obligations and make you aware of your rights and entitlements. Usually this is free and includes: spoken and written advice”

Page 12 of the TAXPAYERS CHARTER – IN DETAIL (SECTION H) states:
“You can expect us to: give you advice and information you can rely on.”

DISCLAIMER
At no time does the Author admit to, consent, or in any other way imply that there is a “relationship” with or obligation to the ATO as a “TAXPAYER” or PERSON or otherwise by asking these questions.

Furthermore, the Author shall not be a party to any agreement, express, written, oral, implied, or otherwise if during the course of the visit to the ATO he is asked to state his name or by any other act, and he shall endeavour to make this known to anyone who asks for his name. The Author does not consent to the voice recording, capture of photographic likeness or video recording of his person at any time.

Any and all questions asked by the Author that appear on this questionnaire will be deemed to have been asked, if there appears a circle or tick around or next to the appropriate answer. In the event that any ATO agent, representative or employee will not answer these questions or upon answering refuses to verify their statements as true and correct to the best of their knowledge by their signature, it may be assumed that the person is either not qualified to provided that information or that the information given by that person is invalid or is in someway misleading, fraudulent or incorrect.

ACCEPTANCE

Your name. (as per PAGE 08 SECTION C - TAXPAYERS CHARTER)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date: ……………………………………

QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1: Are you willing to answer the following 20 questions as per the offer in SECTION C, Page 08 of the “TAXPAYERS CHARTER – IN DETAIL” , which relate to tax obligations?

(please circle)

YES

NO

QUESTION 2: What is your official position at the ATO?

A: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Page 2 - continued

QUESTION 3: Are you the person of highest authority in this branch office?

YES

NO

(if NO, please state the person of highest authority)

………………………………………………………………………………………..

QUESTION 4: In order to clarify your position, are you an employee of the ATO or are you personally employed by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Taxation?

A: ……………………………………………………………………………………..

QUESTION 5: Have you read or are you aware of the statements made by the Honorable J HILL in the FEDERAL court case “DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF TAXATION VS LEVICK?”

YES

NO

QUESTION 6: Is the ATO responsible for the collection of a debt payable to the Commonwealth?

YES

NO

QUESTION 7: Can the ATO sue a flesh and blood human who does not pay an alleged debt as abovementioned?

YES

NO

OTHER (PLEASE STATE) …………………………………………………………………………………

QUESTION 8: In regard to the ATO form “APPLICATION TO CANCEL REGISTRATION”, there are a number of confusing and misleading questions. Could you please clarify the following?

(A.): What is YOUR definition of an ENTITY?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

(B.): Is a flesh and blood person an ENTITY?

YES

NO

Page 3. continued

QUESTION 9: In the abovementioned form, it states that an ENTITY “refers to the sole trader, partnership, company, trust, superannuation fund or other type of organisation that is applying to cancel its registration. What is the definition of a SOLE TRADER?

A: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

QUESTION 10: Is a flesh and blood person a “member organisation of a securities exchange”

YES

NO

QUESTION 10: Who does the ABN actually represent? (i.e WHO is it?)

(A.) The ENTITY

(B.) The TAX AGENT, PARTNER or TRUSTEE

(C.) The flesh and blood person filling out the form (YOU)

(D.) All of the above

(E.) Other (please explain) ……………………………………………………………………………

QUESTION 10: Is the ABN transferable?

YES

NO

QUESTION 11: Is an ENTITY transparent for taxation purposes?

YES

NO

QUESTION 12: Is that information clearly stated on the abovementioned form?

YES

NO

QUESTION 13: Where can that information be easily found or accessible to the public?

A: …………………………………………………………………………………………………

QUESTION 14: Is a “person” a flesh and blood human being?

YES

NO

Page 4: continued.

QUESTION 15: Is a PERSON(S) in all capital letters a corporation or other organisation?

YES

NO

QUESTION 16: Have you read and do you understand the INCOME TAX ACT 1986?

YES

NO

OTHER (please explain) ……………………………………………………………………….

QUESTION 17: Have you read and do you understand the CORPORATIONS ACT 2001?

YES

NO

OTHER (please explain) ……………………………………………………………………….

QUESTION 18: Have you read and do you understand “How to understand an Act of Parliament” - 8th Edition by DJ Gifford and Kenneth H. Gifford” ?

YES

NO

QUESTION 19: What is a TAXPAYER?

A: ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

QUESTION 20: In consideration of the above questions, is it true then to say that the ATO can only levy taxes and gain authority over a flesh and blood natural human being, by their voluntary or assumed agreement, and by the transformation of that person into an ENTITY known as a PERSON or TAXPAYER?

YES

NO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge that this questionnaire has been completed voluntarily, and has been answered to the best of my knowledge and ability. I believe these answers to be true and correct, and accept full responsibility for any information that is in any way false, misleading or fraudulent under oath of office (if any).

SIGNED:………………………………………. AUTHOR (witness) ………………………………

Name: ………………………………………………………. Name: ……………………………………………………………
Note: Please print your name in correct English under your signature; do NOT use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------