The ATO on Tue 4.12.2012, issued a Decision Impact Statement on the decision in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Konza [2012] FCAFC 127. In that case, the Full Federal Court unanimously confirmed that notices issued by the ATO under s 264 of the ITAA 1936 to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) were valid. The notices sought information about customers of an affiliate of ANZ with accounts in Vanuatu.
The Full Court had held that the first notice had not been invalidated by reason of any uncertainty of terms used in the notice, particularly as the requirement of clarity was “not to be applied in a precious or hypercritical fashion”. It also noted the Court’s views on the extent of the ability of the Commissioner under para 264(1)(a) to require persons in Australia to provide information that is held in Australia.
However, it found that the second notice had been so invalidated through lack of certainty, and could not be cured by severance of the offending parts. Among other things, the ATO said it accepts that it was open to the Full Court to find that parts of the second notice were uncertain, and that those parts could not be properly severed from the rest of the notice.
[LTN 234, 4/12]