In a decision handed down on Fri 6.7.2012, the Federal Court refused a taxpayer’s application for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to issue a notice under s 264 of the ITAA 1936 that required her to furnish information and to produce documents.
In an audit in 2010, the ATO identified certain bank deposits (totalling $3.8m) made into a joint bank account in the name of the taxpayer and her late husband during the 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2009 years of income. A majority of these deposits were made by entities of which the taxpayer and her late husband were directors. The ATO issued a Position Paper to the taxpayer saying that the Commissioner intended to assess her on 50% of the relevant deposits on the basis that the deposits represented payments of director’s fees, salary or wages or unexplained income in relation to the taxpayer’s and her late husband’s services as directors of 2 companies. Amended assessments were issued and the taxpayer objected. The Commissioner subsequently sought additional information and evidence from the taxpayer and a s 264 notice was issued.
The taxpayer’s application to the Court contained several grounds, all of which the Court rejected. For example, the taxpayer claimed that:
- the Commissioner wrongly asserted that she could not refuse to comply with the notice on the basis of self-incrimination;
- the s 264 notice was legally flawed;
- the notice was misleading, confusing and incomplete; and
- the time limited for compliance was on its face “manifestly unreasonable”.
The Court therefore ordered that the taxpayer’s further amended originating application be dismissed.
(Binetter v DCT (No 3) [2012] FCA 704, Federal Court, Robertson J, 6 July 2012.)
[LTN 129, 6/7]