20 6月 论文代写：澳大利亚税务调查
澳大利亚税务专员克里斯•乔丹(Chris Jordan)一直在指出，他公布的某些信息，提供了一些合理的理由，说明为什么一家公司可能不交税，尽管它可能有很高的收入。这些损失可能是上年度结转的，也可能是没有利润，也可能是当年的一项投资损失了大量资金。由于澳大利亚最大的纳税人必和必拓(BHP Billiton)在下届参议院税务委员会(Senate committee)的税务调查之前，把自己描绘成国家恶棍，这种情况变得更加严重。这是由于采矿问题以及与本组织对国家财政的贡献密切相关的敏感性。澳大利亚纳税人能够消化安德鲁•福雷斯特(Andrew Forrest)就Fortescue Metal年度报告所作的坦率贡献，这引发了人们的不安。在大量的观察,已经运行恶意的竞争通常自我祝贺的,索赔是由福勒斯特,玩勇敢的Fortescue的竞技场业务已倾斜的真实性已经支付的所得税和其竞争对手相比。
Forrest认为，在Fortescue服务的行业中，与国内主要竞争对手相比，跨国竞争对手每生产铁矿石所缴纳的税款较少(Stewart, 2008)。他进一步质疑是否存在公平竞争，澳大利亚的纳税人是否期望在竞争中获得成功;或者被鼓励移居海外。福雷斯特的评论已在媒体上发表。在此期间，一些媒体人士就支持主席观点的数据点询问了Fortescue的人民。没有相同的报价。这可以被认为是令人失望的，因为福勒斯特的断言，关于物质税收立场的缺点，没有得到现有成员的支持。福雷斯特为Fortescue Metals Group支付了7.38亿美元的2014财年所得税。然而，从早些时候税务局收到的数据显示，他对自己的私人公司塔塔朗私人有限公司(Tattarang Pty)采取了不同的做法。
Chris Jordan, Australian Tax Commissioner, has been pointing out that certain information has been released by him that provides reason which is legitimate as to why a company might not be paying any tax in spite of the fact that it can have a large income. The losses might have been carried forward from the previous year or no profit could have been made on its profit or a lot of funds could have been sunk that year on an investment. The situation is made graver with the fact that the biggest tax payer of Australia, BHP Billiton, has painting itself as the national villain before the next Senate committee tax inquiry. This is because of mining issue and the sensitivity surrounding acutely in relation to the contribution of the organization to the national exchequer. It was inquisitively driven disquiet that Australian taxpayers could digest the contribution done forthrightly by Andrew Forrest with regards to the annual report of Fortescue Metal. Amongst the abundance of observations that has been running to competitively spiteful from being typically self congratulatory, the claims were made by Forrest that playing on the ever plucky Fortescue has been the playing field of business which has been skewed by the veracity that it has been paying greater amount of income tax compared to its competitors.
Forrest was of the opinion that in the industry where Fortescue serves, the multinational competitors have been paying lesser amount of tax per production of iron ore compared to the major domestic competitors (Stewart, 2008). He further questioned whether the level playing exists, and is it expected by the tax payers of Australia in successfully competing in; or being encouraged in moving overseas. The commentary of Forrest had been published in the media. Over that time some media persons asked the people of Fortescue in relation to the data points endorsing the views of the chairman. There was no offer of the same. This can be considered as disappointing because of the assertions of Forrest regarding the disadvantage of the material tax standing unsupported by the members available. Forrest paid $738 million for Fortescue Metals Group as income tax for FY2014. However, the data received from the earlier Tax Office revealed that he took a different approach with respect to his private company, Tattarang Pty.