Jetstar Singapore Contract
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure you're right Airtags, but???????
Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists
from time to time (even if its name is later changed).
Qantas subsidiary means a body corporate that is a subsidiary of
Qantas.
For the purposes of this Act, the question whether a body
corporate is a subsidiary of another body corporate is to be
determined in the same manner as that question is determined
under the Corporations Act 2001.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 46
What is a subsidiary
A body corporate (in this section called the first body) is a subsidiary of another body corporate if, and only if:
(a) the other body:
(i) controls the composition of the first body's board; or
(ii) is in a position to cast, or control the casting of, more than one‑half of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting of the first body; or
(iii) holds more than one‑half of the issued share capital of the first body (excluding any part of that issued share capital that carries no right to participate beyond a specified amount in a distribution of either profits or capital); or
(b) the first body is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the other body.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 50AA
Control
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an entitycontrols a second entity if the first entity has the capacity to determine the outcome of decisions about the second entity's financial and operating policies.
(2) In determining whether the first entity has this capacity:
(a) the practical influence the first entity can exert (rather than the rights it can enforce) is the issue to be considered; and
(b) any practice or pattern of behaviour affecting the second entity's financial or operating policies is to be taken into account (even if it involves a breach of an agreement or a breach of trust).
Q sale Act prescribes entity ownership limits - JQ as a subsiduary can do just about anything it wants
Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists
from time to time (even if its name is later changed).
Qantas subsidiary means a body corporate that is a subsidiary of
Qantas.
For the purposes of this Act, the question whether a body
corporate is a subsidiary of another body corporate is to be
determined in the same manner as that question is determined
under the Corporations Act 2001.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 46
What is a subsidiary
A body corporate (in this section called the first body) is a subsidiary of another body corporate if, and only if:
(a) the other body:
(i) controls the composition of the first body's board; or
(ii) is in a position to cast, or control the casting of, more than one‑half of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting of the first body; or
(iii) holds more than one‑half of the issued share capital of the first body (excluding any part of that issued share capital that carries no right to participate beyond a specified amount in a distribution of either profits or capital); or
(b) the first body is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the other body.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 50AA
Control
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an entitycontrols a second entity if the first entity has the capacity to determine the outcome of decisions about the second entity's financial and operating policies.
(2) In determining whether the first entity has this capacity:
(a) the practical influence the first entity can exert (rather than the rights it can enforce) is the issue to be considered; and
(b) any practice or pattern of behaviour affecting the second entity's financial or operating policies is to be taken into account (even if it involves a breach of an agreement or a breach of trust).
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rollercoaster to the bottom
Fact is that the industry has been sliding downwards on the rollercoaster of safety for the best part of 10 years. Everybody knows it, and those who disagree are living with Joyce in 'cuckoo land'. The senate inquiry should be seen as just the start of many measures that need to be taken in order to repair the industry, not be seen as the be all and end all.
If the inquiry and the subsequent dirt that is unravelled from it (oh yes, there is plenty of that just bursting to come out) is not adressed then I stand by my words that the next inquiry will be into 'a smoking hole containing 177 charred or fragmented corpses'.
It will be interesting to see how our beloved Pollies handle that ??
If the inquiry and the subsequent dirt that is unravelled from it (oh yes, there is plenty of that just bursting to come out) is not adressed then I stand by my words that the next inquiry will be into 'a smoking hole containing 177 charred or fragmented corpses'.
It will be interesting to see how our beloved Pollies handle that ??
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few of you are on the wrong track with the Oz property thing, I own oz property and lodge an Oz tax return every year and pay no Oz tax, nor am I required to.
The Jet* pilots going to SIN will be on LWOP from their Oz company working for another company that happens to be owned by the same mob they are on LWOP from, so good luck convincing the ATO you have no intention of returning any time soon
A private ruling is the only sure way, but be prepared for disappointment
Otherwise, listen to 404
The only one here with actual credentials in this area
The Jet* pilots going to SIN will be on LWOP from their Oz company working for another company that happens to be owned by the same mob they are on LWOP from, so good luck convincing the ATO you have no intention of returning any time soon
A private ruling is the only sure way, but be prepared for disappointment
Otherwise, listen to 404
The only one here with actual credentials in this area
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In tax matters, the ATO take a position after making determinations.
You can bend over and cop it in the rear, if you cave in to their threats of pentalties and interest or, you can object.
After the objection you go to court where the position of residency is decided.The court will decide as residency can be a complex isssue. Stand up for yourself but, be prepared to cop it on the chin if you have to.
I don't believe that big 4 tax companies can be all that good because
' Hoges ' was sunk when the accountants files showed "tax avoidance" as the purpose for their meetings!
Most J* guys would be going for the endorsement,hoping to move on to better places later not for tax savings.
I would suggest that some of the "knockers" have personal motives to reduce the numbers who take up this posting.More 330s flying international routes must impact QF flying
If according to Gnadenburg, Qantas pilots did "dob in" Cathay pilots,that's disgusting . How many QF pilots have their little farm,family trust and business scam going ? Sour grapes from the "gods".What a great bunch of guys they must be at QF!
Were you one of the "dobbers" Gnadenburg?
You can bend over and cop it in the rear, if you cave in to their threats of pentalties and interest or, you can object.
After the objection you go to court where the position of residency is decided.The court will decide as residency can be a complex isssue. Stand up for yourself but, be prepared to cop it on the chin if you have to.
I don't believe that big 4 tax companies can be all that good because
' Hoges ' was sunk when the accountants files showed "tax avoidance" as the purpose for their meetings!
Most J* guys would be going for the endorsement,hoping to move on to better places later not for tax savings.
I would suggest that some of the "knockers" have personal motives to reduce the numbers who take up this posting.More 330s flying international routes must impact QF flying
If according to Gnadenburg, Qantas pilots did "dob in" Cathay pilots,that's disgusting . How many QF pilots have their little farm,family trust and business scam going ? Sour grapes from the "gods".What a great bunch of guys they must be at QF!
Were you one of the "dobbers" Gnadenburg?
International Trader you're wide of the mark.
Guess what? I am just sick of it. The race to the bottom. For a decade plus I have watched Australian pilots say mind your own business, me paying for my endorsement and accepting low wages won't affect you. But it does. These pilots are my competition, the yardstick managements use regionally, to determine wages or how far they will go abusing contracts.
Tough luck. If these mugs, who accept low wages, use the Australian taxpayer to subsidize their lifestyles ( I should say existence ), dob them in.
And they will. Many will be forced to relocate their families back home, because the Asian middle class is booming. Costs of schools, property and lifestyle are inflating. The COS won't cater for an acceptable family existence.
A commuter from Singapore, with his family in Australia, is a resident for taxation purposes.
The ATO is a useful counter to these pilots who use the Australian taxpayer to subsidize an unviable contract.
Guess what? I am just sick of it. The race to the bottom. For a decade plus I have watched Australian pilots say mind your own business, me paying for my endorsement and accepting low wages won't affect you. But it does. These pilots are my competition, the yardstick managements use regionally, to determine wages or how far they will go abusing contracts.
Tough luck. If these mugs, who accept low wages, use the Australian taxpayer to subsidize their lifestyles ( I should say existence ), dob them in.
And they will. Many will be forced to relocate their families back home, because the Asian middle class is booming. Costs of schools, property and lifestyle are inflating. The COS won't cater for an acceptable family existence.
A commuter from Singapore, with his family in Australia, is a resident for taxation purposes.
The ATO is a useful counter to these pilots who use the Australian taxpayer to subsidize an unviable contract.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATO has apparently already been tipped off...if you know anyone who is planning on taking up this deal it might be wise to warn them about the potential consequences of being on the wrong side of the residency-for-tax-purposes equation...
PG
PG
Just a question: If you are working (i.e. earning an income) in another country, where you spend the majority of your time, earning that income, based out of that country, where you live, get health care, shop, eat, sleep, catch public transport and whatever else you may choose to do, how are you subsidizing that income you earn there from the Australian tax payer?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because all Oz resients pay tax to their government, this covers the bill for healthcare and education etc which their families make use of.
If the resident moves offshore in some scheme whereby their employer increases company profits with the promise of a lower tax regime for the resident, then it is the Australian taxpayer which must pick up the tab for these services as the resident is now contributing to some foreign governments coffers.
If the resident moves offshore in some scheme whereby their employer increases company profits with the promise of a lower tax regime for the resident, then it is the Australian taxpayer which must pick up the tab for these services as the resident is now contributing to some foreign governments coffers.
Dear International Trader et al,
I am pretty sure that Gnadenburg is not and has never been a member of the AIPA.
I once flew with a fellow who being ex-AIPA exec said the same thing. As to whether the AIPA rank and file knew of such a submission is moot.
I remember when Ansett applied to the relevant authority to take up the capacity to fly to some far flung destinations. I read the AIPA's very amusing anti-Ansett submission to said authority. I wish I had taken a copy.
I am sure that there are professional accountants or solicitors viewing this site that can search submissions to the ATO by AIPA and point us towards the facts.
I am pretty sure that Gnadenburg is not and has never been a member of the AIPA.
Do what the QF pilots did to CX pilots. Dob them into the ATO.
I remember when Ansett applied to the relevant authority to take up the capacity to fly to some far flung destinations. I read the AIPA's very amusing anti-Ansett submission to said authority. I wish I had taken a copy.
I am sure that there are professional accountants or solicitors viewing this site that can search submissions to the ATO by AIPA and point us towards the facts.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"These pilots are my competition"
...and you appear reluctant to compete. Are you going to evolve in the new airline industry or are you going to be left behind?
"A commuter from Singapore, with his family in Australia, is a resident for taxation purposes."
But a commuter from HKG, with his family in Australia, is not a resident for tax purposes?
Why the difference?
...and you appear reluctant to compete. Are you going to evolve in the new airline industry or are you going to be left behind?
"A commuter from Singapore, with his family in Australia, is a resident for taxation purposes."
But a commuter from HKG, with his family in Australia, is not a resident for tax purposes?
Why the difference?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked oversea some years ago and was advised that the ATO look upon these issues on a case-by-case basis. This was a 7-8 years ago and things have probably changed.
The residency concept evolved from the question of "how many days per year are you in Australia?" to your degree of 'connectedness' with the Australian system. Intention to return to Australia had nothing to do with and your participation in the local tax system had a fair baring too.
The advice given to me was to:
Shot Nancy, I read the said AIPA document when it was released and , yes, was a total pisser, save that they were serious. I recall one section that said that Ansett should not be permitted capacity on international operations on safety grounds because its Pilots had "no international 4 engine jet experience" or words to that effect.
The residency concept evolved from the question of "how many days per year are you in Australia?" to your degree of 'connectedness' with the Australian system. Intention to return to Australia had nothing to do with and your participation in the local tax system had a fair baring too.
The advice given to me was to:
- write to the ATO and telling them that I moving overseas.
- Hand in Medicare care and get my own health insurance (contractor did that).
- Contractor took care of overseas tax liability (was in contract).
- Have 'connectedness' in overseas city- Rental, telephone , utilities, bank account, drivers licence, etc.
- Reduce connectedness in Australia ..(terminate bank account, telephone, utilities etc..).
- Be prepared that the ATO would still assess as a 'PAYE' and have to fight them in the AAT.
Shot Nancy, I read the said AIPA document when it was released and , yes, was a total pisser, save that they were serious. I recall one section that said that Ansett should not be permitted capacity on international operations on safety grounds because its Pilots had "no international 4 engine jet experience" or words to that effect.
No Qantas pilot dobbed in Cathy pilots to the ATO. Approx 15 years ago a Qantas pilot who wanted to work overseas on a contract was advised by a deputy commisioner in the ATO to seek a private ruling. In their application they painted 3 different scenarios of how they could be employed with commuting to Aus been one of them. A ruling was issued that then becomes binding and is available to the public on the ATO web site. That ruling indicated that having a family in Australia while working overseas and spending more than a certain number of days in Aus per year meant you were liable for Australian tax.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fact there are guys wanting to dob in fellow workers to the ATO because they undermined them is more proof of the dog -eat dog environment pilots are in. Management will continue to take full advantage of this .
Heard the 787 rating will cost 25K each ...............and contract to be less that JQ AUS A320. (bonuses deleted).
Good luck climbing over each other for that you animals.
Heard the 787 rating will cost 25K each ...............and contract to be less that JQ AUS A320. (bonuses deleted).
Good luck climbing over each other for that you animals.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnads, go one better mate and hide behind the name of "whistleblower" when you dob all your colleagues in to the ATO.
Not only will you have the satisfaction of feeding it to the mugs but nobody will be able to touch you because as a whistleblower you can pretty much accuse anybody of anything and get away with it.
That is of course if you are prepared to publicly blow the whistle.
Not only will you have the satisfaction of feeding it to the mugs but nobody will be able to touch you because as a whistleblower you can pretty much accuse anybody of anything and get away with it.
That is of course if you are prepared to publicly blow the whistle.
"These pilots are my competition"
...and you appear reluctant to compete. Are you going to evolve in the new airline industry or are you going to be left behind?
"A commuter from Singapore, with his family in Australia, is a resident for taxation purposes."
But a commuter from HKG, with his family in Australia, is not a resident for tax purposes?
Why the difference?
...and you appear reluctant to compete. Are you going to evolve in the new airline industry or are you going to be left behind?
"A commuter from Singapore, with his family in Australia, is a resident for taxation purposes."
But a commuter from HKG, with his family in Australia, is not a resident for tax purposes?
Why the difference?
WTF has HKG commuting got to do with this?
I'm after a 10% pay rise this year plus other benefits. Australian pilots working in Singapore for peanuts, are my regional competition. Airline management are now using a catch cry of market competition for wage improvements irrespective of company profits or other factors such as cost of living.
Now, if Australian pilots can only afford to fly with Jetstar in Singapore, by having their families reside in Australia propped up by the taxpayer, the contract is being artificially supported.
Gnads, go one better mate and hide behind the name of "whistleblower" when you dob all your colleagues in to the ATO.
The pilots going to Singapore, working for new wage lows, are a dangerous threat to my profession. I hope they get a realistic contract or it falls down around them..
Oh yeh so what if I don't have a family? Or I'm married but don't have kids, and my partner is coming with me? What if I'm separated and my family already live abroad, say the US, does that make me a US resident for tax purposes because I pay child support to them there?
Get real you bunch and realise it's not all so black and white!
Get real you bunch and realise it's not all so black and white!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: utopia
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant believe we are arguing about the TAX! News Flash the proposed T&Cs are crap!!! Anybody who accepts this exploitation deserves what they get ... poverty (and a very sore arse).
News Flash the proposed T&Cs are crap!!!
You may not have noticed, but nobody is arguing it is black & white