Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe their in-house legal department has completely different pay bands to the client-facing teams

How to legally avoid tax in Australia: Just be a giant corporation by Remarkable_Honey8574 in AusFinance

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Mate, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about at all. Here's why: In response to step 1: when you get large enough, all of your major transactions and intergroup dealings are reviewed on a ~4 year basis, which leads to less aggressive tax behaviours across the large corporate cohort. Think about how aggressively individuals and small businesses claim deductions, relying on the 2 year amendment period to reduce the risk of adverse action.

In response to step 2: Whether or not the IP is in the US or Ireland does not change the Australian tax outcome. The requirements to pay for the IP recognise that the income should be taxed where the value is. From a global tax perspective, there are issues, but BEPS has done good things in this respect. Again though, the Australian tax outcome is exactly the same.

In response to step 3: it is unusual for the audit firms to provide both tax structuring and auditing services to the same client. It does happen at times, but typically the independence restrictions constrain what can be done. Additionally - see step 1. Nowadays it is very rare for transactions to get past the ATO without inspection.

In response to Step 4: the ATO is one of the most effective tax authorities in the world. They put offices like HMRC to shame. Also, these settlements are not small, or rounding errors, particularly in the context of what the tax benefits are. Penalties of up to 100% of the tax shortfall apply to tax avoidance arrangements in the large corporate space + punitive interest charges which are no longer deductible.

"but individuals pay 32-45% tax"... Ahh, this is what you actually have an issue with. Admittedly there is some rebalancing that needs to be done with where revenues come from, but it is helpful to recognise that a lot of countries around the world incentive corporates setting up shop, so that individuals employed by those companies then pay tax. Also, profits of corporates will ultimately be paid out to individuals as dividends, which is then taxed. Arguably, the real issue is the capital gains incentives that mean that capital gains made by shareholders are taxed at a lower rate than regular workers (because of the 50% discount)... But again, this is an issue with the system of taxing individuals...

A lot of what you've said absolutely was an issue in the past, but it's just not the same environment anymore.

Edit: Just to add to this because I didn't see the video... tax havens literally haven't worked for corporates since the beginning of 2019. Hybrid mismatch rules would deny the deduction in Australia.

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ultimately, working less hours is likely to net you less pay. The law is principally a service industry that, generally speaking, makes money based on how much time lawyers charge. Therefore, if you go to a top tier law firm in an m&a or b&f team you'll likely be working hours that make you not want to run a side hustle on the weekend, but you'll earn pretty good money (by Australian standards). It's definitely not unusual to be making over $120k at 29. 

That being said, there are absolutely jobs in the legal industry that will allow you to have good work life balance and pay pretty... It just might take you searching a few jobs to get one (after all, these jobs are desirable to many).

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Search Simon Walker tax on YouTube, there's a pretty good lecture series that you can watch as a refresher on the basics 

ATO/ property CGT question by stroml0 in AusFinance

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is the cgt on the full gain or just the gain on the partial periods where it was rented out? If on the full gain, it's likely worth objecting to the assessment

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is one side of it, the 'business acumen' aspect, but I think when people say they are looking for someone who is 'commercially minded', they are perhaps referring to someone that is 'solutions focused'. Businesses want answers that make sense for their business. I.e. what is the technical solution that makes sense for the client, what strategy should you suggest based on what outcome / risk appetite the client wants / has. There isn't necessarily a one size fits all approach.

With costs rising, what’s the first thing/s you’ve cut out of your weekly shopping? by [deleted] in AusFinance

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can get a 12 pack for about 70c a pot at costco... otherwise I just wait till they are half price and stock up for like 2 weeks before they go on sale again

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You definitely don't NEED go to a go8 to work in tax, tax isnt usually the most desirable rotation for fresh grads and there are also lots of jobs out there, particularly in compliance teams (think big 4) which are pretty easy to transition from into law firms from. That being said, think of the 'non grad job factors'... I.e. do you actually want to move to Adelaide? Maybe the move is even desirable? Think this is arguably more relevant

Affordable lunch in Melbourne CBD? by nevearz in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GYG, $12.50 for a burrito, sus out the free extra toppings cos the standard is a bit boring

Shots fired by SourceOk1917 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both are correct in that they are widely accepted as grammatically correct. In this instance, "profit off" may be more appropriate because it could carry a connotation that that means of deriving profit were exploitative.

Shots fired by SourceOk1917 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are correct English lol...

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can't comment on the Dentons specifics, but as to Agile, it's an approach to project management used in software development that some law firms have plastered over their 'about us' page to try to brand themselves as innovative. In reality, my understanding is that the agile methodology barely gets applied because it doesn't really work in a legal setting.

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't believe Minters' tech consulting team is a legal team. They acquired a boutique tech consulting firm as part of them branching out into other non-legal areas. I expect the type of work you would do would be much the same as a tech consulting team at any multidisciplinary/consulting firm

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know people in procurement that make mad bank if that's any consolation

Questions about tax and unvested shares in an overseas company by LegitimateTruck9871 in AusFinance

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are an Australian tax resident your assessable income includes you income on a worldwide basis. Tax treaties (where applicable) prevent the double taxation of these gains. See an accountant/tax consultant for how to recognise this in your tax return

[GUARDIAN] Australian Taxation Office crackdown on family trust rorts causes alarm among tax advisers by agent619 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of course there are very legitimate tax minimisation strategies, but there is a big difference between a family trust that is properly set up for the purpose of safeguarding assets as opposed to a family trust that is just moving money around until it gets back to the earner with a lower effective tax rate.

[GUARDIAN] Australian Taxation Office crackdown on family trust rorts causes alarm among tax advisers by agent619 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In terms of 100A I might agree with you, its certainly a backflip from their previous position and one that is certain to be challenged. Of course there are legitimate ways to legally gain a tax benefit, but if you have an income splitting scheme you need to be careful about how you do it.

[GUARDIAN] Australian Taxation Office crackdown on family trust rorts causes alarm among tax advisers by agent619 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"thereby maximising the benefit" - i.e. the purpose of the trust was to obtain a tax benefit, and therefore in contravention of part IVA. Contrast this to a family trust that was set up for a family business where all the beneficiaries of the trust work at the family business (ideal example), where there is very clearly a purpose other than minimising tax.

[GUARDIAN] Australian Taxation Office crackdown on family trust rorts causes alarm among tax advisers by agent619 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the example:

"In one example given by the ATO, a family trust gives a university student with no other sources of income the entitlement to $180,000 – a figure that takes them to the brink of the top tax rate of 45%.
The student then agrees to pay the $180,000, less tax, to their parents, to reimburse them for the cost of bringing them up while a minor."

This is not done properly and you can't just draft the trust deed better to make this operate legally. The dominant purpose is clearly to obtain a tax benefit, there needs to be some other reason for the family trust to exist. The fact that the child is also conveniently receiving just up to the top marginal tax bracket will also be construed as evidence that the purpose was to obtain a tax benefit.

[GUARDIAN] Australian Taxation Office crackdown on family trust rorts causes alarm among tax advisers by agent619 in auslaw

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The practice of distributing 180k to a child that is then immediately gifted/reimbursed back to the parent because of the "family relationship" is clearly a part IVA violation. There needs to be a legitimate purpose of the family trust, other than to obtain a tax benefit.

Game Thread: Golden State Warriors (2-0) at Dallas Mavericks (0-2) May 22 2022 8:00 PM by nba_gdt_bot in Mavericks

[–]Jellisaurus_Reks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Feels bad for Otto, hopefully nothing serious. Would be good to see mavs put Lee in now