Virgin Australia UpgradeMe pricing and success

[Deleted member 29185]

I see your perspective Swan, with the ambiguity of the definition. However your accountant can put your mind at ease - a good one should be worth every dollar in peace of mind eh?

As I said previously, my accountant has never mentioned loyalty points and I must admit, I hadn't really thought about it, but that tax ruling you mentioned above makes me think they are likely to be classed as income for many of us. As much as good accountants are worth their money, I still seem to recall a clause that states along the lines of "all care and no responsibility". If the tax dept does come calling at some future date, the accountant is unlikely to be saying "hold up, it's my fault, I'll pay the fine". I think Mogul may have been correct insofar as it's in the too hard basket and letting sleeping dogs lie may be prudent! Trouble is with the Tax Dept, like many sleeping dogs, they can still bite when awoken! Coincidentally, I'm hopefully seeing my accountant this week, so I'll surreptitiously ask the question.....

 

[pangwen]

Thanks swanning_it - ended up giving it a go on an upcoming BNE-MKY with a minimum bid of $120 (off a saver fare). I didn't expect it would be accepted, but just got an email confirmation!

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Thanks swanning_it - ended up giving it a go on an upcoming BNE-MKY with a minimum bid of $120 (off a saver fare). I didn't expect it would be accepted, but just got an email confirmation!

I've won off the minimum bid another two times. CNS-BNS and BNE-CNS. First was off the back of a flexi fare and minimum bid was $150 and the second was off the back of a saver fare and the minimum bid was $180. The saver fare (at $115) represents the best bargain (Total of $295). Pity the J SCs weren't awarded or I'd be bidding every flight!

 

[clipped_wings]

As I said previously, my accountant has never mentioned loyalty points and I must admit, I hadn't really thought about it, but that tax ruling you mentioned above makes me think they are likely to be classed as income for many of us. As much as good accountants are worth their money, I still seem to recall a clause that states along the lines of "all care and no responsibility". If the tax dept does come calling at some future date, the accountant is unlikely to be saying "hold up, it's my fault, I'll pay the fine". I think Mogul may have been correct insofar as it's in the too hard basket and letting sleeping dogs lie may be prudent! Trouble is with the Tax Dept, like many sleeping dogs, they can still bite when awoken! Coincidentally, I'm hopefully seeing my accountant this week, so I'll surreptitiously ask the question.....

I'm seeing our accountant soon as well and I'm very interested to get another opinion on this. I suspect the short answer will be "huh?" as I still maintain this is not something the ATO is actively chasing, now or retrospectively. Your scruples are messing with you and I'm gonna lay my bet on Don't Worry About It.

Upgrades are like thermal receipts. They'll fade, become a distant memory and soon there'll be little evidence they ever existed.

 

[jackthomas]

Approved Upgrade Bid: MEL-CNS $255. Minimum Bid was $245.

 

[medhead]

The ATO has pretty much said it's way too hard so are not going to bother. The ambiguity is in case they change their mind in the future. But at the moment make hay while the sun shines.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The ATO has pretty much said it's way too hard so are not going to bother. The ambiguity is in case they change their mind in the future. But at the moment make hay while the sun shines.

And the sunset clause on income tax is how long.........

 

[medhead]

And the sunset clause on income tax is how long.........

As long as the definition of retrospective taxation.

I've heard many a junior NCO warn against overthinking things.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

As long as the definition of retrospective taxation.

I've heard many a junior NCO warn against overthinking things.

I'm not trying to overthink it......and what we're discussing is not retrospective taxation! It either is subject to income tax or it isn't. There is nothing in that statement about overthinking it or retrospective. Whether or not the tax dept thinks it's too hard just now, is something different again, but doesn't change the fundamental question.

 

[medhead]

I'm not trying to overthink it......and what we're discussing is not retrospective taxation! It either is subject to income tax or it isn't. There is nothing in that statement about overthinking it or retrospective. Whether or not the tax dept thinks it's too hard just now, is something different again, but doesn't change the fundamental question.

You seem to be concerned that the ATO will decide to tax points at some time in the future and then go after people retrospectively. As we've seen with Super that is pretty murky water, but the fact remains they would have to retrospectively tax points if they decided to change their position. Other than that the ATO position is to not tax points now, with the proviso that they might in the future. The fundamental question is answered, it's anyone's guess if they're tax points retrospectively. There is no possible answer to that question.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

You seem to be concerned that the ATO will decide to tax points at some time in the future and then go after people retrospectively. As we've seen with Super that is pretty murky water, but the fact remains they would have to retrospectively tax points if they decided to change their position. Other than that the ATO position is to not tax points now, with the proviso that they might in the future. The fundamental question is answered, it's anyone's guess if they're tax points retrospectively. There is no possible answer to that question.

With respect medhead, that's total rubbish. The law is what decides whether points constitute income and the tax ruling mentioned previously states that clearly (although a ruling can of course be challanged). Retrospectivity has nothing to do with what the ATO thinks "at the moment" or in the future. Retrospective legislation is about a Gov't at some time in the future, changing its policy to catch out what it considers, are tax cheats of today eg, bottom of the harbour scheme (ask Mr Maher whether he still owns Bundall Manor). That's not what is being discussed. The discussion is not about the past or future, it's about the here and now and as I said, the only question is whether the law states (here and now) that points constitute income (the ATO ruling states it does in many cases). If or when the ATO decide to prosecute avoidance is a separate issue (which has absolutely nothing to do with retrospectivity) and I think you'll find the ATO has the power to prosecute for avoidance from some time ago, if it so desires.

 

[medhead]

Mate you can go argue with the fence post for all I care.
The ATO ruling is our guide (binding most of the time) on how the ATO is going to police the law. The ruling says they are not going to tax points. That's it. FULL STOP. The question is only relevant if the ATO changes its mind about the current ruling. It then becomes a case of retrospectively because of the current valid ruling. Trying to second guess and over think beyond that ruling is pointless, and completely off topic.

With respect medhead, that's total rubbish. The law is what decides whether points constitute income and the tax ruling mentioned previously states that clearly (although a ruling can of course be challanged). Retrospectivity has nothing to do with what the ATO thinks "at the moment" or in the future. Retrospective legislation is about a Gov't at some time in the future, changing its policy to catch out what it considers, are tax cheats of today eg, bottom of the harbour scheme (ask Mr Maher whether he still owns Bundall Manor). That's not what is being discussed. The discussion is not about the past or future, it's about the here and now and as I said, the only question is whether the law states (here and now) that points constitute income (the ATO ruling states it does in many cases). If or when the ATO decide to prosecute avoidance is a separate issue (which has absolutely nothing to do with retrospectivity) and I think you'll find the ATO has the power to prosecute for avoidance from some time ago, if it so desires.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Mate you can go argue with the fence post for all I care.
The ATO ruling is our guide (binding most of the time) on how the ATO is going to police the law. The ruling says they are not going to tax points. That's it. FULL STOP. The question is only relevant if the ATO changes its mind about the current ruling. It then becomes a case of retrospectively because of the current valid ruling. Trying to second guess and over think beyond that ruling is pointless, and completely off topic.

Which ruling are you referring to?

I'm referring to the one that was posted earlier, which does not state that they won't tax points......

The flight reward might also be subject to income tax if they are received by an individual who

· renders a service on the basis that an entitlement to a flight reward will arise· receives the flight reward as a result of business expenditure, or· where the activities associated with the obtaining of the reward amount in themselves to a business activity.[SUP]4[/SUP]​

Reads to me like they're subject to income tax assessment for many of us and sticking our heads in the sand might be fine.....or not.
​

 

[k_sheep]

BNE-ZQN, offered $200 (minimum), accepted.

I have a little buyers' remorse though because I'll probably just sleep the whole way!

 

[glasszon]

Another data point:
MEL-SYD on saver fare, min bid is $195. Did not bid though.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Another data point:
MEL-SYD on saver fare, min bid is $195. Did not bid though.

Sounds expensive to me.

Minimum bids I submitted recently for 4 sectors BNE-CBR were $140 ... and they were off AMEX comp flights.

 

[glasszon]

Sounds expensive to me.

Minimum bids I submitted recently for 4 sectors BNE-CBR were $140 ... and they were off AMEX comp flights.

Agreed, I was surprised how expensive it was for a 1 hour flight.

 

[Milefest]

IMO UpgradeMe is really only worth it if you don't have status. Priority check in, priority security, lounge access, priority boarding, priority baggage etc. comes with status, the only thing we don't get is the J seat. Better to use points or find a discounted J fare where you'll receive the extra SCs and points.

 

[jazza1971]

NTL - MEL return on two AMEX flights accepted $140 each way, happy with that.....bit strange though, submitted wife's about two weeks before I decided I would as well for NTL - MEL...mine approved two days ago, wife's bid declined.....both reds, would have thought her's would get processed before mine...anyway she gets the seat and I'll sit down the back

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Minimum bids I submitted recently for 4 sectors BNE-CBR were $140 ... and they were off AMEX comp flights.

I sector accepted at min. bid of $140. Three to go.