Page 2216 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill also provides for the protection of the ACT revenue base. Instruments which relate to a conveyance of property in the ACT but executed and held outside the ACT will be liable for duty as if they were executed in the Territory. In addition, compliance with revenue laws will be increased if an instrument covered by the Stamp Duties and Taxes Act is not admissible as legal evidence unless it is duly stamped. This provision would not, however, apply to instruments admitted in evidence during criminal proceedings.
Finally, the option for taxpayers to affix adhesive stamps on transfers of marketable securities and conveyances will be removed. This change will not apply to documents executed before July 1990, and persons holding stocks of unused duty stamps will be given until 1 January 1991 to obtain a refund. The Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation was concerned that this six-month period may not be long enough, given the low value of adhesive stamps sold - expected to be around a quarter of a million dollars in 1989-90 - and the fact that Australia Post has advised the revenue office that at present adhesive stamps are sold only through the Canberra General Post Office. This six-month period would seem to be more than adequate.
The committee also expressed concern that a number of discretionary decisions which could be made by the commissioner under proposed sections 56F and 64D were not open to review. I can assure the committee that any decisions made by the commissioner in relation to sections 56F and 64D would be reviewable by virtue of sections 89 and 91 of the Taxation (Administration) Act 1987. These provisions allow taxpayers the right to object, firstly, to the commissioner and then, if necessary, to the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal against any assessment made under the Stamp Duties and Taxes Act 1987.
I would like to comment on some points raised by members during the in principle debate. Firstly, I wish to comment on some of the matters raised by Mr Stevenson. I think it bears pointing out that the States of New South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia have legislation requiring stamp duty to be paid on the sale of businesses, and that Victoria introduced similar legislation into its lower house late in 1989.
Mr Stevenson, to my way of thinking, seems to be a little bit confused between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Whilst no-one condones tax evasion, and he seems to have condoned tax avoidance, and whilst it is the company's right to pay the minimum tax legally required, I think it is also governments' responsibility, where appropriate, to ensure that tax avoidance should be minimised.
The raising of taxes is based on certain provisions. If these provisions are met, tax should be paid at a certain rate. If for certain technical reasons tax may be avoided,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .