Carbon Tax

Not intentionally trying to stir up a hornets nest here but I was reading this morning in WA's paper about the proposed carbon tax on the trucking industry. It infers that possibly there wont be a direct tax applied to diesel but instead a reduction in the excise rebate entitlements the truckies are currently entitled to claim.

My question is : can someone who knows first hand explain to me how this excise rebate system currently works ?

The other thing that is unclear to me is what is the definition of an owner operator. One man owns and drives a single truck is clear but if a single man owns three trucks and his sons steer two of them is he still deemed an owner operator ?


Basil

in a nutshell, bazza

bend over,spread em n smile

Have a look at this bazz, we get the rebate in earthmoving,for all the machines, even though my newphew operates one, and my brother the other one, however its the one company! the way i understand it is owner driver is a sole trader, i get it on my truck but i am the only one steering [with my feet]

looks like if your "under 20 tonne gross" and metro you get it but i do stand to be , bla,bla, you get the idea!


Road Transport
Under business credit reform, businesses operating vehicles with a gross vehicle mass
of at least 4.5 tonnes used in on-road transport will qualify for a partial credit of
excise paid. The remainder will represent an official, non-hypothecated road-user
charge. Vehicles eligible for a credit will include around 54 000 heavy petrol vehicles
that have not previously had access to credits. Should the excise paid on a fuel be less
than the road-user charge, the partial excise credit will be set at zero. Any additional
excise collected by the government to encourage the introduction of cleaner fuels will
not be covered by this partial credit.
Companies operating heavy transport vehicles in metropolitan areas will benefit from
this extension. The business credit reform eliminates the exclusions and complexities
of the current schemes

Baz - The fuel rebate scheme is the most poorly written and badly applied and intrepreted scheme ever devised under Australian taxation laws.
My brother has been virtually bankrupted by the mongrels who administer this scheme, and there is no way of getting any satisfaction from the ATO, as they hold all the aces.

The brothers problems started when he moved from a Goldfields area with his Komatsu loaders to commence a contract with a port, to load iron ore onto ships.
He'd been claiming the fuel rebate in the goldfields, as there was no problem with the category he operated under .. "mining, or the beneficiation or treatment of ores".
He rang the ATO fuel rebate dept when he moved to the port, to ask if he could continue to claim the fuel rebate, when he was loading the iron ore into ships. The ATO assured him he could.

He worked for 7 yrs on this contract .. then the ATO called him up out of the blue, and said .. "Hang on, we made a mistake. You aren't entitled to claim fuel rebate, the person who interpreted the relevant part of the Act, misinterpreted it. You're not involved in mining anymore, you're just loading ore into ships, and that's excluded, by the wording in the Act."
"You owe us the $800,000 we've paid you over the last 7 yrs .. and we want that back .. pronto .. and interest at X % applies, if we don't get it back, pronto .. "

Naturally, he went to see his lawyers, and that's when the fun started. The lawyers claimed he has a case, the ATO says he hasn't a leg to stand on.
4 yrs down the track, the lawyers bill has reached $300,000, while the brother fights and fights the ATO .. and he has not advanced one inch in the struggle against this utter bastardry carried out against him.

The ATO claims that any misinterpretation of the wording of any Act, by any one of their employees, cannot be a reason to take the ATO to court.
They retain the right to interpret any Act as they see fit, and if they decide that one employee has misinterpreted the particular Act .. and they then revise the "misinterpretation", to another interpretation, that means you are liable .. then, you just have to wear it.

Now, here's the real kick in the arse. The brother has since found out, that other miners and contractors loading ore into rail trucks, received the same "revision" and claim for return of the excise .. but they fought the ATO and won. Somehow, loading ore into ships isn't the same, according to the ATO.

The brother has got to the point, where everything he worked for all his life is gone, he's effectively bankrupt, he's 70 yrs old, and can see himself fighting the ATO on this bastardry for the next 20 years .. with the ATO still not admitting to any liability, or error in interpretation.

The lawyers keep havings "meetings" with the ATO, and the ATO refuses to budge one inch .. but the lawyers still keep getting paid. The move the brother is contemplating now, is to offer the ATO $50,000 to settle the case, or he'll go bankrupt, and they will get zilch.

The lawyers are saying that the ATO is refusing to budge because they are $h*tting themselves, if they give in, or if the brother has a legal win against them somehow (which appears impossible at this point, because the ATO is a law unto itself).

The reason they are $h*tting themselves, the lawyers suspect, is that it's possible there are dozens more cases around Australia, similar to the brothers, in progress .. and if the ATO loses in the brothers case, it will set off an avalanche of claims against them under the fuel rebate wording interpretation .. and they will lose hundreds of millions in revenue.

What gets me out of all this .. is WHY, the ATO left it for SEVEN YEARS? .. before they claimed they made an error, and demanded repayment??
IMO, the brother has a good case to have the ATO claim largely thrown out of court, just on the basis of their tardiness in coming to a decision that they had "made an error in interpretation".
They should not be entitled to any more than a month or two's repayment of the rebate, IMO.

However, the lawyers don't appear to be acting on this angle, they appear to just be concentrating on getting the ATO to change their mind, which is utterly impossible, unless a judge changes it for them.
I aked why he didn't get a WRITTEN, official O.K. from the ATO, as regards the rebate .. rather than just an O.K. over the phone .. and I was informed that even if you get a WRITTEN confirmation from the ATO, it stills means NOTHING .. as it can be rescinded at any time, if the ATO decides that the employee who wrote the confirmation, had misinterpreted the Act.
In other words, they hold all the Aces in the card game of fuel rebate .. you can't win .. any laws of fairness of treatment, no longer apply, when the ATO is involved.

Basil,

In a nutshell..

ALL heavy vehicles with a GMV 4.5t or greater(this includes petrol powered ones) 1996 build or later, automaticaly qualify for a credit on their BAS statment for 15.535 cents per litre of fuel consumed.( ibelieve effective 1/7/2011 this is reduced 0.5 of a cent/ litre to 15.035 cents/litre.If your vehicle is pre '96 you need to keep maitainace records that comply with the excise act....

Farmers/ earthmovers/miners/ fishingboats ect can claim a credit of approx. 38cents per litre on the BAS statements.

As for your other question..

My understanding is..
If you own 1 truck and Drive it , you're an Owner Driver.
If you own 1 or more trucks and Pay drivers/s you're an Owner Operator..

But as always IST&2B........

you blokes seem to be switched on (well you international drivers at least) if the carbon tax is going to be $23.00 per ton what sort of scales are they going to use to weigh it????????????????? whale

John, you'd better ask a politician that question, they have all the answers .. :

I think someone needs to ask Bob Brown & the Greens, where all the CO2 will come from, to feed the trees & plants in future?
Yes, trees and plants absorb CO2, they need it for photosynthesis! .. and the waste product from photosynthesis is oxygen!!
What with cutting down on CO2 emissions, and therefore oxygen production .. and with all the oxygen thieves we have as politicians .. we won't have enough oxygen left, to go around!! ..

C'mon Ron.......

We'll import it from China!!

chocs

Chocs, what a great idea! Why didn't I think of that! You've obviously got the makings of a great politician!! ..

Ay....
i'm balancin the scrap trade!!
Furthermore...if we run short of oxygen..there will be no more Swishy jimmy jammin..they'll be the first to suffer....poor jimmys

PS if the ol chocs was runnin the show..ya wouldn't be typin on his thread!!

chocs