Freedom New Zealand

Solomon Star News
Friday, 20 February 2009

HISTORY is littered with commentaries by business, world leaders and academics on how the banking system is set up and what it was designed to do and has been doing ever since its creation.

It is fair to say that the masses may never know the real business of foreign banking. And yet, it is on the back of the masses that banks carry their successes in terms of profitability, year after year after year.

They make their money in a number of ways, including but not limited to charging phenomenal interest rates. In return they pay hardly anything to depositors.

Their practices border on daylight robbery – practices sanctioned by competent authorities and the legal system in every country.

Most, if not all, qualify for insolvency if they were to uphold the same rules imposed on ordinary folks.
But we will never know why they are allowed to continue in business.

And the reason we will never know about what banks do with your money [I don’t have any] is clear. No one in his right mind broadcasts the secrets of his success.

But history has been kind, leaving important indicators on the secrecy under which banks operate.
Many have left the door to banks ajar for those who care to peep in. People like Henry Ford, the man whose family name is synonymous with the United States auto industry.

Or Reginald McKenna, who was Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Board of the Midland Bank between 1915 – 1916.

Henry Ford, for example, once said of banks in the United States:
“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning”.

Mr. McKenna said:
“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money … Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people”.

As indicated in this column last week, these are some of the issues I wish to discuss this week in the hope of enlightening us to the reality.

For example, given the practices by the banks, what do we as a nation need to do?
More work and less talking. Any meaningful intervention in this murky area, however, has to be spearheaded by Government and its monetary policy.

It is in this light that one, Kelvyn Alp, a New Zealander, has provided the Government a “must read” document titled, Solomon Islands Economic Reform – Monetary System and Taxation.

Copies were widely distributed to Members of Parliament, particularly Government Ministers and Members of Government Caucus last year. It was provided as a Parliamentary Discussion Document.
The 36-page document was dated 8th November 2008.

It is a ‘must read’ if one were to understand the banking system here, the monetary system and taxation and what is urgently required to deal with these problematic areas.

In the preamble, Alp says the document “is an urgent reminder of the need to look beyond the established and ultimately flawed economic theories that have caused such devastation to nations the world over”.

“All too often there are those that are ever ready to give advice to developing nations like Solomon Islands, while at the same time, concealing the true nature and intent of that advice. Change will never come from systems that have been proven to fail time and time again.

“In this document, I shall deal with the truth and facts only,” he said.

Alp argued that many have studied and received degrees for subjects covered in the document, “yet have never comprehended the underlying mechanics of those lessons and how they relate to real-world economies”.
He urged readers to be willing to put the interests of the people and nation above their own.

“This must be done despite the constant pressure being applied by some to retain the status-quo and further have you implement disastrous policies that will place you, your family and the nation, in a continuous position of servitude,” the former military man turned businessman said.

An avid reader of a wide range of subjects, I must say I am fascinated by the clarity and indeed the message being conveyed in this document.

The more I read this revolutionary document, the more I want to be out there doing something. The feeling I have experienced will only be felt if one’s passionate about what needs to be done and fast.

For example, how do you feel about phrases such as “today’s money [is] created by private interests for private profit”.

Alp quoted Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a banker who in 1790 said and I quote: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws”.

Many will probably recall reading somewhere that Rothschild was one of the founding fathers of what we know today as America’s Federal Reserve, the equivalent of our Central Bank.

The US Federal Reserve was never a Government institution. It’s an invention by businessmen who want to control the world’s wealth. And they do today. Only six per cent of the world’s population control today’s wealth.

Commercial banking, including those in Solomon Islands are merely an extension of the greed that has now thrown the global financial economy into tailspin.

Next week, I’ll take you through the banking system, the monetary reform and the many faces of money that banks “sell” us – faces fully disguised in deception and falsehood.


By ALFRED SASAKO

- Source

The credit crisis has been given many excuses, ranging from too many people spending beyond there means, to investments gone wrong and even failed trade agreements.

Put simply, it's the banks who loaned the credit (not money) and allowed it to that which could be given the exmaple of a drug addict to credit, to tick-up credit with the dodgy dealing bank, to get there next fix so someone could get a plasma, mortgage and car etc which the bank knows most of there applicants could not afford to pay back.

I mean an example is that most university students who make about $150 a week in N.Z from student allowance living costs, getting the bank saying here's a credit card for $5000, then another bank doing the same, then a finance company allowing around $2000 loaned, possibly more, so a total of $12,000 debt from one student. Did the bank assess this thinking the student would become a doctor or lawyer who could repay this? No, because most would take a part time job afterwards in some dodgy fast food place or call centre close to minimum wage in order to survive, and in turn these places hire and fire quicker than they over sales most of the time. They may end up at a WINZ office, and WINZ will push them onto anything other than unemployment to keep the unemployment benefit numbers down, so someone could then be falsifying a mental illness and be drugged up on med's to get by on direction from the government. I have interviewed many people like this or they pass uni and go oversea's only to come back not long after in a worse case and paying back IRD so much money and still the banks on the amount of thin air credit loaned and then interest to kill there wages.

This is the banks faults, its the big companies making a killing literally in some cases like weapons manufacturers, fast food outlets, oil companies and so on who market more and more there products and services which are made by P.R to look essential and con people into debt by credit.

Banks work from other deposits normal people make in good faith thinking 'we trust our bank', banks should be an optional service, not compulsory for your wages to be done as a commercial transaction, they (the banks) gain interest on the money in balance in there banks and loan out credit which is not based of there own books, but these deposits as some do know this harsh truth.

It's much the same with the reserve bank it has no real money but now will based on bonds, credit issued in the form of paper bills printed to the crown then passed to us. The national debt as its called.

To make the elite crash happen quicker everyone could withdraw all there money, buy a safe and store there own money and invest in gold, but remember last time people did this, the U.S government issued prohibition on gold, they did much the same on alcohol and tobacco. The N.Z government would likely follow, hence the guaranteed deposit scheme hoo-haa that most banker controlled states and nations of the western world are doing and have done.

Kiwibank currently is running somewhat anti-aussie-bank ad's, well Kiwibank is in debt if you look at logically, its government owned, which i would support nationalization as opposed to privatization of capitialist foreign powers,but anyway the crown owes the national debt, the citizens and persons who are registered with stock certificates as a security interest (birth certificates) vest debt based on liability to pay such things like compulsory taxes and fee's, foreign examples include insurances.

This in turn gives people less wealth and more wealth in the hands of the banks and governments as these are processed in N.Z prior to clearance, i mean tax is deducted before you can withdraw your pay, as is the case via PAYE, student loans, kiwisaver, ACC levies, other taxes, child support, court fines and possibly more examples. So the individual has alot less than what starts off, it puts wealth again to clarify out of the hands of the worker. Then to note this worker pays his or her bills and is expected to live, at this point they could be able to afford other things but if not a life on credit is led by a large flock of sheep in example. No one ever believed someone cried wolf, oops i mean banks.

A Government discussion document seeking views on the idea of allowing families with children to split their income to reduce their tax bill, was released yesterday.

Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said the discussion document looks at the merits of introducing income splitting as a way of providing additional support to families with children.

Its publication is the result of a commitment made in the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and United Future.

"The document looks at the advantages and disadvantages of income splitting and asks readers whether they think it would be the best way of providing additional support to families with children," he said.

"If they favour income splitting, readers are asked to comment on the form they think it should take - whether, for example, it should be on a 50/50 basis, what age limits should be set for the children involved, and what would constitute a 'family' for purposes of splitting income."

In income splitting the income of a higher earning partner is allocated to a lower earning partner, reducing the family's overall tax liability.

Families in which one parent earned $120,000 or more a year and the other had no income would gain the most. Splitting the income 50/50, the family could cut its annual income tax by nearly $9000.

When one parent had an income of $60,000 a year and the other had none, the tax saving to the family would be just over $3000, assuming the same 50/50 split. If one parent earned $60,000 and the other $30,000 the family would save about $960. Submissions close on June 30.

- NZPA

Inland Revenue was letting "deadbeat dads" leave New Zealand without making arrangements to pay child support debts even when informed about flight details, National's Judith Collins said today.

Mrs Collins, National's welfare spokeswoman, said a woman contacted IRD to let it know flight details for her Australian-based former husband and father of her two children.

She claimed he earned about $100,000 but had not paid child support for a decade and owed over $20,000 in child support.

"Why, despite being handed all the information on a plate, did the Inland Revenue Department do no more than meekly ask this man as he was about to leave the country whether he would like to make a voluntary payment?" Mrs Collins asked in Parliament.

She said IRD had told the woman on January 23 that when the man tried to leave the country he would "be in for a big surprise" but he was only asked if he wanted to pay off his debt.

Mr Dunne said he could not comment on the individual case but said legislation passed last year would make it easier to make such collections in future.

He said measures to allow a partial write-off of late payment penalties had been successful and had seen debt levels reduced.

"What that means is that more child support is being paid and getting through to more children. That has to be successful."

Mrs Collins said IRD could use existing powers to apply for arrest warrants more "in order to prevent these deadbeat dads from walking away from their financial obligations to their very own children".

She accused the Government of putting freedom of movement rights above the rights of mothers and children.

Mr Dunne said IRD had been seeking arrest warrants more but usually cases were resolved without actual arrests going ahead.

- NZPA

Inland Revenue yesterday confirmed it was working with a number of overseas tax authorities to investigate alleged tax rorts involving the use of bank accounts in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein.

International pressure on Liechtenstein to lift the cloak of secrecy from its banks intensified this week as tax agencies across the globe widened probes into tax evasion involving some of its banks, including LGT, which is owned by the state's billionaire royal family.

The US said it was examining more than 100 American taxpayers it suspected could be hiding money in the principality and was co-operating with tax administrators in seven other countries including New Zealand.

A spokesman for the IRD yesterday confirmed there were "less than a dozen" New Zealand taxpayers involved in the alleged tax dodges.

"We are aware that some offshore activities and investments of New Zealand taxpayers are operated on the assumption that Inland Revenue may not be able to obtain information from sources in other countries," Inland Revenue commissioner Robert Russell said yesterday. "These assumptions are no longer safe in today's environment of international co-operation."

The US Inland Revenue Service has examined Liechtenstein bank accounts that contain amounts of up to US$100 million.

The Inland Revenue spokesman said early stages of its audit process suggested the amount of New Zealand tax involved was $1-$2 million.

The quiet mountain enclave of just 35,000 residents tucked between Austria and Switzerland has lured funds from thousands of wealthy investors from around the globe, earning it an unwanted spot on an international blacklist of tax havens.

German prosecutors have been leading the Liechtenstein crackdown prompting 91 people to admit their role and pay up nearly €28 million ($51.5 million) in back taxes. The probe has already forced the resignation of one of Germany's best-known business figures - Deutsche Post chief executive Klaus Zumwinkel.

- Adam Bennett

There are plenty of examples of IRD cases gone horribly wrong. IRD (WINZ, ACC & the rest of the government included also as scum thugs) is a scum bag agency which is not needed and works for the foreign corporation, publicly known as the reserve bank of New Zealand. Read the Open Letter to the New Zealand People by Kelvyn Alp from the Direct Democracy Party for more info about the real ways of how monetary and taxation works in this country.

Air conditioning technician Ian Mutton committed suicide in 1996 after being pursued by the IRD for years over debt that started from a missed $84 tax payment. Mutton's 13-year-old son killed himself a year later.

In 1998, the IRD chased Christchurch entrepreneur Dave Henderson for $70,000. He said he did not owe it and after four years the IRD ended up paying him $65,000. He later purchase a building IRD used to work out of, in which I believe to show them whose in power, him.

In 1999, Jan and Murray Willis were awarded more than half a million dollars in compensation after being harassed by the IRD.

But recently the N.Z Herald cover another example article titled 'Debts forced man to fake own suicide', but they don't mention much more than this person is wrong, seemingly IRD are right. Only the legal system's side is covered. I have included briefly that story below to show the bias and limited intellectual abilities of the mainstream media.

The Auckland man who allegedly faked his own death faced mounting debts, tax problems and the possibility of benefit fraud charges.

His wife, who presumed him dead, went on to collect a $1 million life insurance policy.

Court documents show the man, who cannot be identified because of a suppression order, was known as a caring father before he disappeared at a Port Waikato beach in late 2002.

He was later legally declared dead, presumed suicide, but had actually started a new life in Christchurch.

The documents, presented for the declaration of death, show the man and his wife - who had just separated - had been the subjects of a lengthy Inland Revenue investigation.

In an affidavit, the wife said the man's income-tax liability had been uncovered. After taking legal advice they feared that benefits they were paid while he worked would also be uncovered and that they could be prosecuted by Work and Income.

The couple had no way of paying back the estimated $47,000 in benefits to mitigate a jail sentence.

"[The man] wanted to ensure that I was not prosecuted, that I did not receive a jail sentence. I am aware that this weighed heavily with him," the wife said.

"[He] himself was worried about going to jail. He was fearful that he would not be able to handle jail."

The man was arrested last month after applying for a passport under his real name, and faces fraud charges in relation to two life insurance policies, and dishonestly using a document.

He is in custody and due to reappear in the Christchurch District Court on Thursday.

The wife was initially named as a party to the fraud but police no longer believe she was involved.

It is unclear if she will be able to keep the insurance payout.

The wife described an argument they had before his disappearance in which he said "the only way to fix the problem with Winz and the IRD was for him to end his life so that I could make a claim on his life insurance and this would enable debts to be cleared and for the children to be set up financially for their lifetimes".

MOUNTING UP

What "dead man" owed:

* $47,000 in wrongly paid unemployment benefit

* $20,000 to Inland Revenue

* $9000 for car

* $5000 to finance company

Before entering the NZ Herald story below, this story is in a nutshell, 'Giving power to control a tax on a resource to a foreign owned private entity/corporation' which is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, mistakenly not called for fact the Reserve Bank for New Zealand/er's.
Note, the resource/s not controlled by the people, now the tax implied an additional tax on top of a failing economy.'

The line from the Herald saying 'A significant increase in the excise tax on petrol would compel people to reduce spending on other goods and services, while any significant decreases would enable people to increase spending' - equals that people would have less money by a enforced tax that can not be avoided which in turn coming from the Enforcement Agency R.B.N.Z would contract such a department like I.R.D to do it's dirty work, much like income tax, in which people are already complaining about and working there butt off just to be broke.

Additionally the line from the N.Z Herald, 'He said about 10 years ago, when he was Reserve Bank Governor, a visiting American academic, Professor Larry Ball, suggested giving the governor the authority to vary the rate of GST' - this would then control the dirty trick like above but with private business in New Zealand. In effect making a heavy enforcement of various taxes like the American Enslaved Police State Empire. Eventually a federal or reserve bank tax could also be created with all this nonsense.

True of the last line in the story but not in full disclosure, 'A financial commentator said Dr Brash's suggestion would run into constitutional problems because it would hand over fiscal responsibility for setting taxes to someone other than the Government'.

The reserve bank of New Zealand is not a government agency, it is a foreign corporation controlled by international elite bankers and what has be known as the illuminati style elitists of the New World Order.

-----------------------------

Now the Herald's story . . .

Giving the Reserve Bank the power to vary petrol prices could take the heat out of the economy without raising interest rates, says former Reserve Bank Governor Don Brash.

Dr Brash, writing for tomorrow's Herald, says varying the price of petrol would do away with the negative effects that higher interest rates have on exporters.

A significant increase in the excise tax on petrol would compel people to reduce spending on other goods and services, while any significant decreases would enable people to increase spending.

Dr Brash's idea comes during an inquiry by Parliament's finance and expenditure committee into the causes of inflationary pressures and the effectiveness of current monetary policy in controlling inflation.

He said about 10 years ago, when he was Reserve Bank Governor, a visiting American academic, Professor Larry Ball, suggested giving the governor the authority to vary the rate of GST.

He did not favour the idea because GST was levied on virtually everything at the same rate, and the rate changed infrequently.

Now, he said, the time had come to give "very serious consideration" to a variation of Professor Ball's idea by varying the excise tax on petrol.

"The systems are in place which would enable the excise tax on petrol to be varied without too much drama [and] the public are accustomed to the price of petrol fluctuating from week to week."

Dr Brash said giving the Reserve Bank Governor the authority to vary the excise tax would require safeguards, such as ensuring the additional revenue from higher prices was broadly offset by reduced revenue over a period of, say, five years.

The revenue would also have to be held by the Reserve Bank, separate from the Government.

A financial commentator said Dr Brash's suggestion would run into constitutional problems because it would hand over fiscal responsibility for setting taxes to someone other than the Government.

Source - NZ Herald.

New Zealand used to be 'A quiet little place, used to be dependant
without foreign trade, money. It used to be without the Americanization
theme such, as Gangsta-Rap culture, NewMarket wasn't trying to be one of
the main strips of LA/Hollywood, Christchurch actually seemed like a
English place or small city. But things changed, the government never
really helped a great deal of people, it was a business like any other,
people out to get rich by whatever means and if possible quickly. Now,
well it appears that the government still won't help if at all, but if
you complain about it well, you apparently breaking the law by being
anti-governmental, anti-party like, it's like all the parties and people
whom supported this law I speak of (which is infact close to breaking
the law for just bad mouthing it) appear not to care about the people
there elected by, in which they should represent. As I said, it's a
business, you don't have the freedom of speech really in New Zealand
anymore, even if it's factual or opinion, the government doesn't like
criticism, so things don't get fixed and there's no freedom nor democracy.

People protested, the police took photo's and video taped it, like they
normally do with protests. It seems to me that people are going to need
to wake up, wake up on the facts: (Written so any Joe Bloggs could read
and understand)

The parties all in parliament (the dictators palace should we call it?)
will not help nor really care.
-Crime is high; More violent crimes than ever, more murders than ever, a
drive-by shooting in fact has occured.
-Prices are high; housing, food, petrol, water, these are the basics of
life these days.
-Pushing anyone off Unemployment benefits onto other benefits to make
the statistics look great, but in fact they still don't have jobs.
-High rate of job losses, more migration to New Zealand, the government
calls this 'Out cry for skilled workers', which shunts our people down
the toilet, remember, it's business!
-The Freedom of Speech is dead. It costs to speak basically or you need
to register your personal details, so everyone knows who you are and can
target you, including the government of course, they know where to send
the fine to or there agents/police.
-Tax is ridiculous all around.
-Making a bit money of Trademe, lawn-mowing, window washing etc to
survive this nightmare, sorry you need to pay IRD some more tax or else
be fined/arrested.
-New Zealand in a recent survey, worst place to live - no value for
money severely ripped off, ok to travel for a short period.
-Government scandals and fraud etc. They still have there jobs or an
influential position of power.
-More and more Kiwi's leaving bound oversea's commonly Australia
-All Banks, including the Reserve bank of N.Z, raising interest rates,
credit cards, loans, mortgages - all dodgy monetary policy and reflects
like the U.S is controlling our people via the bankers plans and policies.
-To add the drop out of finance companies, just going down the toilet.

These above problems effect us all in some way or another.
Try and find a party with real solutions for these major problems!

Originally Written by Red Pill.

Concept of this in it's entire or partiality state, may NOT be used by
any political party for gain or policy or advertising; without my
explicit consent as a human being, directly and in writing with proof.

The prospect of an election-year lolly scramble in tax cuts is foremost in the minds of voters, according to a Herald Digi-Poll survey.

But with both major parties already promising tax cuts the vote grabber is likely to be in how much, rather than if, they are offered.

In a Herald Digi-Poll, just over one quarter (25.5 per cent) of respondents picked tax cuts as an issue likely to influence their vote in the election - more than for hospital waiting lists (17 per cent), the economy (15.1 per cent) or law and order (14.2 per cent.)

The prospect of lower taxes was especially high on the minds of Aucklanders, where one-third of respondents picked tax cuts, compared with 22 per cent of the rest of New Zealanders.

Nor was it just an issue for respondents who said they would vote National - it was top of the list for both National and Labour supporters - with 29 per cent and 23 per cent respectively saying tax cuts were likely to influence their vote.

Yesterday National leader John Key and Labour's Michael Cullen both said tax cuts were still very much on the table and neither was surprised at the level of traction the issue had in the polls.

Dr Cullen said given recent media coverage the result in the poll was not a surprise. However, economic uncertainties were one reason not to set the size and scale of tax cuts too far ahead of the Budget.

Mr Key said he was not surprised tax cuts were the biggest issue - especially for Aucklanders, who faced higher mortgages and living costs. He said the public were "rightfully" demanding tax cuts after the Government's record of high surpluses year after year. Tax cuts were in the media spotlight in late December after Finance Minister Michael Cullen announced he had set aside $1.5 billion, although he said it was not necessarily indicative of the size of the Government's tax-cut package.

They were also prominent mid-year after Prime Minister Helen Clark announced the Government would provide personal tax cuts in the next Budget.

Mr Key said recent financial strife in the United States did not affect the ability to offer tax cuts. Economists have indicated they might be desirable in a slowing economy to boost it.

"But what they do require is the Government to be careful with the quality of its spending. If you are going to tax people less you have to be careful with what you spend and make sure you don't waste it."

Mr Key said National's tax cuts would be "a long-term programme rather than in a big bang election-year bribe".

Despite the publicity about the carbon emissions trading scheme and energy efficiency programmes, global warming was chosen by 9 per cent. Just 2.1 per cent of National supporters picked global warming in their choices, compared with 11 per cent of Labour's and, not surprisingly, 43 per cent of those who said they would vote for the Green Party.

Other issues likely to influence votes for Labour supporters were hospital waiting lists (22 per cent) and the economy (16 per cent), while for National supporters it was the economy (19.5 per cent) and law and order (16 per cent.)

The poll of 750 people was taken between January 10 and January 24 and has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.6 per cent.

It is one of the very rare times tax has headed out health issues as a main issue - in February last year when asked what the main issues were just 5.6 per cent of respondents chose tax.

The poll was also taken before law and order issues shot into the headlines in recent days with a spate of vicious crimes. So far, 10 people have been murdered this year, and the spate of murders and focus on youth crime is likely to push law and order up as an election issue.

The new Electoral Finance Act was not a significant vote-influencing issue - selected by 3.5 per cent.

- Source

This refreshes my mind with once again Fay Richwhite & Co, income tax is an Act not a direct law and proportioned justifiably with color of law and even required? The banks vs the People, banks and IRD are foreign control corporations, they are not in any way 100% managed by the N.Z government. Your consent is the key to freedom.

Only the Direct Democracy Party New Zealand in the taxation policy (Clear and simple, no political jargon to confuse any population) say:

New Zealand's taxation system is a complete rort. It provides no incentives for people to save for the future. It is also easily avoidable by many corporations and individuals. New Zealand's current company taxation rate is high and has been for far too long, meaning that we are at a disadvantage when trying to compete with other countries for foreign investment and business on the world stage.

The rest of the politicial parties as usual lie, avoid or cover-up any such matters. Adding to that, Kiwisaver is much the same of an evil, in it's first look it can be a deployment trick for the Reserve Bank to decrease the amount of money held by persons in flow and spent. Good luck getting your money back if they take any money in the scheme (scheme = scheduled scam) including if you opt out.

Heres the story that was published not in full truth by the mainstream media.

Our main banks have been accused of a tax rort so massive the sums involved will have an impact on the average taxpayer.

Inland Revenue claims the alleged rort involved the banks deciding how much tax they wanted to pay and creating a scheme to avoid the rest - profiting by $1.7 billion.

A potential Inland Revenue win in the case would make a large amount of money available for public spending. It would be enough to fund tax cuts for working New Zealand.

The accusations are laid out in court judgments being fought by the banks, which include the BNZ, ANZ, National Bank and Westpac.

ASB Bank, Rabobank and Deutsche Bank were also involved, although the Herald on Sunday has learned that the latter bank and Inland Revenue settled out of court last week.

Court judgments have so far backed the approach taken by Commissioner of Inland Revenue Bob Russell, who is insisting the banks pay $1.7b plus interest into the public purse, raising the cash at stake to more than $2b.

Collectively, it is the biggest tax case the country has seen, taking in more than 60 separate court cases and a handful of judicial reviews.

The final court cases will not take place until the middle of next year, and may stretch into 2009.

There are also fears that, even as Kiwis would enjoy the benefit of a successful outcome for the IRD in the case, the banks would recoup their cash by hiking bank charges and interest rate fees.

Dr David Tripe, director of Massey University's centre of banking studies, said that if the banks were to lose, then it was likely a taxpayer windfall would be matched by increased bank charges. "If the banks didn't win they would like to recoup the money [through] interest margins, fees and charge," he said. "If the banks lose, we will pay."

Details of the case are emerging after two years of court battles by the banks with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Recent cases have seen resistance to Inland Revenue efforts to use internal banking documents in the case - and to use documents from one bank against another.

The courts have ruled in favour of Inland Revenue right through the Court of Appeal. The next hearing is scheduled in the Supreme Court for December 11.

In a recent decision, Court of Appeal judges William Young, Robert Chambers and Mark O'Regan dismissed an appeal by the BNZ to restrict the information available to Inland Revenue.

"There is a fair amount of money at stake - $1.7b core tax in total of which $415m is tied up in the BNZ litigation."

The appeal court justices reviewed the Inland Revenue case, which is that "repo deals" carried out by the banks "were devoid of commercial purpose other than exploitation" of a tax loophole.

Most banks involved refused to comment except Westpac and BNZ, which said fees had not gone up.

Tripe said the fact the main banks were all carrying out the schemes did not suggest complicity.

Tripe, who will be an expert witness for one of the banks when the case goes ahead, said the highly competitive banking market in New Zealand meant the banks would scour competitors' financial results. If those results suggested one bank was obtaining an advantage over the others, then work would be done to discover how - and to match it.

There is also speculation that finance minister Dr Michael Cullen has spent the cash the Government may recoup, before the case has even been heard. Cullen refused to answer any questions about whether the banks' money had been earmarked for projects - or even spent already.

Loophole closed in 2005

The loophole which Inland Revenue claims was exploited by the main trading banks was closed by legislation passed in Parliament in 2005.

It came shortly after Inland Revenue issued notices to the banks that it was reviewing the level of tax for which they were liable.

The loophole allowed the banks to send money through an offshore company, and then through their Australian-based parent company before being repaid in New Zealand.

The return on the investment would be treated by the banks as exempt from tax because the profits on the deal were paid from the offshore company to its parent company, which is also offshore. Alternatively, they claimed they were relieved from tax because of foreign tax credit rules.

The use of the deals was estimated to have substantially lowered the banks' tax take. Last year, the BNZ and Westpac won the Roger Award for worst company, decided by the Campaign Against Foreign Control of the Aotearoa and the Gatt Watchdog.

Judges John Minto, Laila Harre, Maire Leadbeater and Mary Ellen O'Connor estimated that the banks were paying as little as 6.7 per cent tax, rather than the actual rate of 33 per cent.

The judges said that the activities of the ASB Bank and ANZ were similar, and had they been nominated then all four banks would have been awarded the Roger Award.

Some of the banks, in their disclosure statements, state that they went to Inland Revenue in 1999 with a sample of the deal and had it signed off by tax inspectors.

Some, including BNZ, have also stated that the deal and its benefits were standard market practice.

It is believed that Inland Revenue, in approving the original structure of the tax deal, did not expect the banks to seize it with such vigour.

The commissioner told the Court of Appeal justices that "the repo deals were executed on a template".