The Federal Court was satisfied that relevant documents were property served on the taxpayer and entered summary judgment for the Tax Office in the amount of just over $48m.

There were 2 issues for the Court.

  • When the taxpayer’s solicitors ceased to act for him, in relation to both his appeals, against income tax assessments, and the summary judgment application, he provided an address for service only in relation to the taxation appeals. However, the Court was satisfied the Tax Office properly served relevant documents in relation to the summary judgment application by using that address.
  • The Court was also satisfied that the notices of assessment had been certified by a Deputy Commissioner because of reg 24 of the Taxation Administration Regulations 2017 (presumption as to signatures of Deputy Commissioners etc.) and affidavit evidence that the author of the signature on a certificate issued under s 255-45 Sch 1 TAA (as to the amount owing by the taxpayer) was a Deputy Commissioner.

(DCT v Donoghue [2018] FCA 924, Fed Ct, Logan J, 21 May 2018, updated 25 June 2018.)

FJM 5.7.18

[LTN 124, 4/7/18, Tax Month – July 2018]


Comprehension questions (answers available)

  1. Was summary judgement against the taxpayer entered, for $48m?
  2. Was the Court satisfied that the relevant formalities had been satisfied, to give rise to the statutory presumption that the amount claimed was a debt due and payable?
  3. In the wake of his solicitors ceasing to act for him, did the taxpayer advise a replacement address for service of notices for only the appeal against the assessments and not the recovery matter?
  4. Did this prevent the Commissioner establishing that the process had been successfully served?




About the author