2013 Federal Election

[Peppermint Lounge]

They clearly don't give a crap about who's elected there, only that Mirabella lost. Not only lost but lost one of the safest Liberal seats ever during one of the most emphatic Liberal election victories ever. Clearly her constituents hold her in similar regard as your friends.

[itch]

The lady who replaced her is infinitely worse.

[Froggy]

I'd hardly call the person who beat Aussie Soph an independent. How the tables turn, hating on Mirabella because she's a woman, well done.

[Hercy]

So you admit that Gillard was hated on for being a woman. Well done.

[itch]

I don't think anyone can reasonably assume women hating enters into modern politics. The only people accusing (and participating) of it is the left.

Froggy only pointed out that the left is failing to meet the criteria for morality (that it suggested).

[GreyWizzard]

I'm so glad the man,who came up with this is now the premier of qld

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/busines ... 2uihw.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Froggy]

and that relates to the election how?

[GreyWizzard]

I was just after a political thread.

Without me making a smarmy comment... If you want to create a general political thread I'll be happy to post it in there.

[Peppermint Lounge]

Tony Abbott in Indonesia among other things looking to resume live cattle export, says "I utterly reject any notion that Indonesian abattoir standards are lower than Australia's".

I might try rejecting a few conclusive notions myself at home tonight and see where that gets me.

[Cletus]

Shall I prepare and perfume the spare room?

[Peppermint Lounge]

Yes please. October 1 is World Vegetarian Day and yet Chapel St still smells like KFC.

[guttermouth]

T

URNING back the boats is a matter of "sovereignty", Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned Indonesia, after Australia agreed to back down and accept 63 asylum seekers.

After a three-day ocean stand-off, Australia agreed to accept the asylum seekers despite the fact they were rescued just 80km off Java.

[Froggy]

Gotta be delicate with the precious Indonesians at the moment as they have their knickers in knot over the previous governments spying of their officials. Our relationship with them is all one
way Australia should tell them to get fucked and cut all of our aid to them as they seem to just take it and treat us like a old crack who're anyway

[stanard]

Who are?

[selfish]

Whom's House?

[Peppermint Lounge]

$882m cash payment approved by ATO to News Corp. No wonder we all have to pull our socks up.

http://m.afr.com/p/business/marketing_m ... CV1fQ5UJvJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

News Corp’s $882m blew the budget
Neil Chenoweth - 17 Feb 2014 00:05:00

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation received a near $900m payout from the Tax Office after the regulator decided not to appeal a Federal Court decision last August, in the middle of the federal election campaign.

The single largest factor in the underlying deterioration of the federal budget announced by Treasurer Joe Hockey in December was a cash payout of almost $900 million to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

The massive windfall, revealed in the US group’s accounts a week ago in New York, was at a time when News Corp newspapers were highly critical of the budget and called for deep cuts.

The drama over the payout, one of the largest cash payments made by the Tax Office, played out behind the scenes during the federal election.

On July 25 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the Tax Office to allow News Corp to claim a $2 billion deduction from a series of paper shuffles between subsidiaries.

At the time, The Australian Financial Review speculated the win would be worth up to $600 million in future tax benefits, but interest charges had pushed the payout far higher.

The Tax Office was deciding whether to appeal against the judgment as News Corp newspapers launched a ferocious attack on the government, kicking off with the Daily Telegraph’s headline on August 5, 11 days after the court judgment: “Kick this mob out.” In the following days, Labor leader Kevin Rudd would claim that News Corp was running a virulent anti-government campaign in exchange for concessions from the Coalition.

The Tax Office had 28 days to lodge an appeal, a deadline of August 22.

News Corp later reported that the ATO had advised it would not appeal the case. An ATO spokeswoman said all decisions on whether to appeal a court decision are made by senior officers after seeking external legal opinion.

News Corp’s half-year accounts say “a foreign tax authority” paid $A882 million, in instalments. This included the original tax plus several hundred million dollars of interest.

From the moment the decision was made in late August not to appeal, the payout was an outgoing that had to be applied to the federal budget.

In the December mid-year update, Mr Hockey revealed a major blowout in the 2014 deficit since Labor’s statement on August 1 that underlined the need for major spending cuts.

Discounting new spending announced by the new government, Mr Hockey reported the underlying deficit had jumped $6 billion in the four months. The Australian’s editorial called the update “a devastating picture of Labor’s spending profligacy” and called for urgent action to rein in “wasteful spending”.

But the largest single factor producing the blowout appears to have been the cash payout to News Corp.

Mr Hockey and News Corp declined to comment.

The galling feature for the Tax Office is that the original deals that cost taxpayers $882 million cost News nothing.

In a 1989 meeting, four News Corp Australia executives exchanged cheques and share transfers between local and overseas subsidiaries that moved through several currencies.

They were paper transactions; no funds actually moved. In 2000 and 2001 the loans were unwound. With the Australian dollar riding high, News Corp’s Australian subsidiaries recorded a $2 billion loss, while other subsidiaries in tax havens recorded a $2 billion gain.

By last July that paper “loss”, booked against News Corp’s Australian newspaper operations, had become an $882 million cash payout.

Under a legal arrangement when the company was spun off last June, News was forced to pass all of the tax payout to Mr Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox.

News Corp said it had retained $A81 million because it faced income tax charges on the interest payments by the Tax Office. However it seems unlikely to actually pay these funds: News Corp Australia carried another $1.5 billion in tax deductions from a separate paper shuffle that it made when News reincorporated in the US.

[mech]

Am I missing something, or isn't it just tax News Corp already paid but was deemed not to owe?

[mech]

The guy writing about this obviously has a huge problem with Murdoch and News. His explanation of what actually happened is incredibly vague and is lacking on details, or at least I'm just not getting it.

http://neilchenoweth.com/2013/07/25/fou ... on-cheque/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can't just claim a loss to apply to your tax without there actually having been a loss. A loss in exchange rate is still a loss. Maybe they used exchange rates to their benefit, i.e. made a "loss" on it but were able to keep the dollars in local markets where the lost value didn't matter, but that does take the money out of play from the other country and make it a loss.

Trying to make out that News Corp simply took $1b from the Aussie government is so ridiculous. The ATO chose not to appeal the case - the issue here is the law and not News Corp.

BTW I've sold and bought shares on the same day, a "paper transaction; no funds actually moved", but had to pay tax on it. They're beating it up for people who don't understand finance.

Also making a loss is normally terrible for tax purposes, since you can't claim it for previous CGT (you can carry it forward but not use it retrospectively), so it's all about timing losses to ensure you pay a fair amount of tax.

[Megaman]

Am I missing something, or isn't it just tax News Corp already paid but was deemed not to owe?

Yep and so they got a refund of tax paid in 2001. So Australian Government revenue for the 2001-02 year is less than what was reported. Not sure how that affects the current budget at all.

[unfnknblvbl]

really? You know how you owe me like $15k from like, ten years ago? Well you have to pay it back to me now. But don't worry, because it won't affect your budget now, because it was ten years ago! Easy peasy!

[Cletus]

Aren't you supposed to budget based on what you will earn, not what you've already saved? I'm not maths at very good.

[Peppermint Lounge]

Am I missing something, or isn't it just tax News Corp already paid but was deemed not to owe?

Yep and so they got a refund of tax paid in 2001. So Australian Government revenue for the 2001-02 year is less than what was reported. Not sure how that affects the current budget at all.

Because the current budget shrinks by 882m regardless of the date placed next to the transaction.

[Peppermint Lounge]

mech yes that News got the payment means it's lawful. The ATO don't give money away. Would you agree it doesn't look like News did much to earn it? Never mind the ATO appeal decision timing coinciding with an election campaign and News Corp's conduct during the election campaign. Given that why defend them?

[mech]

"Didn't do much to earn it"? We don't know the details of the transaction, but fact is they would be negligent if they weren't trying to minimize their tax. Are you saying you take no deductions? If there was a legal way to save on your tax you wouldn't take it?

[Ambrose Burnside]

They'll probably announce today that they'll have to re-do the Senate vote in WA after the idiots lost votes and announced different winners