The world according to GRP — Monday, March 13, 2006:
Unconstitutional compliance costs
The Melbourne Age published the following letter on March 8, 2006:
Cost of compliance should be rebateable
TIM Colebatch (Opinion, 7/3) asks why the $1 billion a year we pay our tax accountants should be deductible from taxable income. It shouldn't. It should be a rebate against tax paid.
Section 82 of the Constitution says: "The costs, charges, and expenses incident to the collection, management, and receipt of the Consolidated Revenue Fund shall form the first charge thereon..." If I am required by law to submit a tax return, and if this requires me to engage a tax accountant in order to avoid making a mistake that would leave me with a criminal record, it seems prima facie that the accountant's fee is a "cost" incident to the "collection" of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
More generally, it appears prima facie that the entire compliance costs of the federal tax system are the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Judicial confirmation of this theory would give the Commonwealth a much-needed incentive to reduce compliance costs.
Gavin R. Putland... .
There were no replies. Perhaps silence was the best defence.
Copyright © Gavin R. Putland except as otherwise attributed. Posted at The world according to GRP under the title Unconstitutional compliance costs. You may republish this item verbatim on your website or blog provided that you include this notice (with hyperlinks).
Comment |
Email this post: 
