Mission Statement:
     To find 400 fearless Volunteers to prove Mr Kenichi Ohmea at least partially wrong.

    FlagPole Memorial:
    This can be moderately achieved by patriotically installing a Flagpole Memorial for each of the 18,000 Australians who Volunteered "for Service in Defence of the Principles of the Charter of the United Nations" in a first United Nations' Asian "Freedom of Choice" War, Korea (1950-4).

    Modus Operandi:
    To overcome the personal financial problem of this Mission each Volunteer should have Net Capital Gains of approximately  $120,000. He can then choose to minimise this tax by investing in the Memorial Flagpoles so that they are "free". He is now able to market his property - the Flag Lieutenant Flagpoles.

   The Australian Tax Office:
   The Australian Tax Office also allows an extra cash retribution to finance the location and propaganda of his involvement: --- see Capital Gain Minefield Technical Support Information Brochure Mk I code designation: "Minimising Capital Gains Tax".

   Personnel:
   Volunteer Operatives might be energetic Pensioners employing their DVA/DSS Pensioners Earnings Credit Scheme or creative, above Average Australian Family wishing to Tax Plan to obtain the student Austudy Grants, family employment, etc.

   Training:
  A program for individual Tax Planning, Motivation, Marketing and ATO requirements is in place         - DEET Certified. See current advertisement.

   Deployment:
   The Memorials have been accepted by Local Governments for installation on private or commercial properties sans DA. Permission must be obtained for erection on Public Land.

   Time Frame:
   Mission to terminate by 30th June 2004 - the 50th Anniversary of end of the UN/Korean War.
 

        The Choice Principle: 

        "Parliament having prescribed the circumstances which will attract tax, or provide occasion for its reduction or elimination, the citizen has every right to mould the transaction into which he is about to enter into a form which satisfies the requirements of the statute... [It cannot] matter that his choice of transaction was influenced wholly or in part by its effect upon his obligation to pay tax."

                                    High Court of Australia:  Determination by Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick.
 

        "The Duty of Care"

           (Supreme Court of N.S.W.) ----"an accountant or solicitor who fails to give any consideration to lawful tax minimisation structures which reasonably should be known or discoverable at the time a matter is current would, prima facie, be professionally negligent, unless there is an express disclaimer (which should be confirmed in writing) that no advice on revenue aspects, including stamp duty is proffered. Indeed, an accountant or solicitor should also consider the tax position of others who might reasonably be foreseen to be affected (eg Beneficiaries of a trust or shareholders in a company), as a duty of care may be owed to them".

                                            Determination by Justice Cohen,  Bayer v Balkin (95 ATC 4609)

  {Next}  {Back}  {Index}  {Comment}   {E-mail}