Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

GST is a tax on the basic right to justice

By John de Meyrick - posted Wednesday, 17 February 2016


In that way, if Ajax loses, it has the advantage of tax relief for all of its own costs and Joe’s costs (as assessed), including the GST element in each party’s costs whilst, on the other hand, if Joe loses he carries all of his costs and Ajax costs (as assessed), including the GST on each.

Anyone associated with legal process knows that access to justice has largely become the province of big business. The small business sector and the private individual cannot really afford to litigate.

Government provision of relatively informal dispute resolution facilities for minor consumer matters is of assistance at the lower end of litigation. But between that level and even local court action the costs can be prohibitive for the ordinary litigant.

Advertisement

Where legal expenses, including GST, can be deducted from income for taxation purposes, it can provide some relief for litigants and other users of legal services. But otherwise it can be a heavy financial burden. And where that burden is being increased by 10 percent then, unarguably, GST is a tax on a citizen’s basic right to justice.

Within the scope of taxation fraud, the leakage of GST must represent a significant loss to government sources. The anecdotal evidence relating to the practices of businesses and traders in particular, who charge GST without being registered and/or those who are registered but do not pass on to the Tax Office all of what is collected, is a matter of general concern which taxation agencies seem under resourced to adequately address.

Whilst more could be done to tighten up on this leakage to ensure that the present 10 percent of GST is fully collected, there is a strong case to grant GST relief in the form of a rebate, to non-income related consumers of legal services on whom that tax is imposed, directly and indirectly, in the course of the pursuit or defence of their legal rights.

This anomaly might well be given attention in any current taxation review.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John de Meyrick is a barrister (ret’d), lecturer and writer on legal affairs.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John de Meyrick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John de Meyrick
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy