A friend has just sent me an example of legalese which he claims is the best that he has ever come across.
I confess that I am also of the same opinion.
After reading it, if you too are not, I will be very surprised. Moreover, if you can understand what the particular section of the act aims at achieving, please enlighten me and the other readers of this post.
Section 165.55 of Australia’s 1999 GST legislation.
“For the purposes of making a declaration under this subdivision, the commissioner may: (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and (b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as (i) having happened at a particular time; and (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and (c) treat a particular event that actually happened as: (i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).”
If you follow things POTUSv45 says it is clear as a bell – just call it fake news. But I agree with your notion of legalese andthe paragraph – LOL.
No, I don’t follow the POTUS. I however read enough about him to understand your comment.
Checking the web, this is part of the tax code and the “commissioner” is the tax commissioner. From what I can see, the purpose of this is to grant the tax commissioner the sole authority to define realities and alternate realities for the purposes of taxation. The term “entity” is referring to a “tax avoider”, who is allegedly using a “scheme”, and it is the interpretation of the “scheme” that is in question.
It all seems to me to be concise and readable compared to what we have here.
You appear to be experienced in handling this kind of text. I am not and hence my bewilderment!
At least they are honest even if the code itself is egregious.
From Looney’s comments it would appear that they are not only honest but, also quite clear in their intent.
Totally makes sense to me as I was a tax interpenetration guide for my clients back in the day 🙂
Covering all bases there in the tax laws as there are such crooks out there 🙂
XO
WWW
There, like Looney, you too seem to be experienced in these matters.
I don’t know what I think.
it makes me tired.
you know those cup games where a fast talker keeps moving the cups around and finally stops and you have to pick the cup the coin is under?
it’s like that.
and I never liked that. 🙂
Only you can come up with an analogy like the cup game! I agree.
To think there are people who earn fat salaries drafting stuff like that and other people earning fat salaries explaining it to the rest of us who haven’t a clue what it means.
Vested interests Nick?
agree
There are times you cannot prove someone right or wrong for lack of evidence, though you pretty well know that they are either right or wrong. I think ‘Legalese’ protects and gives the concerned Commissioner the right to make a final declaration based on his hunch through experience.
Maybe 🙂 What do you think ?
I agree with your explanation but why make it so oblique?
That’s what specialized education is all about. If it was so simple, we could all have been Commissioners too 😉