General discussion, page-16018

”It’s a great question”

Well, it WAS. Then our judges started identifying as wizards.

You have hit a nerve.

Tax law used to have good precedent based on logic; but behold s 165 - 55 of the GST Act 1999.

A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 - SECT 165.55

Commissioner may disregard scheme in making declarations

For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:
(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and
(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

Then we have Hart v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCAFC 61 at 83.

”Subsequently, in RCI, the Full Court made it abundantly clear that a taxpayer does not discharge its onus for the purposes of s 177C by demonstrating that the Commissioner’s counterfactual is not reasonable.”

THIS IS ACTUALLY NOW LAW IN AUSTRALIA. We are ruled by people who think they are wizards and literally legislate from the capital or the bench that they don't need to be reasonable and can make up or dismiss facts as they please.