The Victorian Supreme Court has refused a taxpayer’s application to set aside freezing orders made on 26 March 2010 and continued on 14 April 2010. The taxpayer is the second defendant and wife to the first defendant.
The Supreme Court noted the facts as set out in Bell J’s reasons for continuing the freezing orders of 14 April 2010 in respect of the relevant property of both taxpayers (see DCT v Gashi [2010] VSC 120). Among other things, Bell J noted the Deputy Commissioner had issued proceedings to recover some $6m in unpaid tax and penalties from both taxpayers and that the financial and property affairs of both taxpayers had become “intermingled with the financial and property affairs of their children and the family company”.
Since Bell J’s decision, the wife had been successful before the Federal Court, which had ordered that her assessments for the 2000 to 2006 years be amended to reflect a tax liability of some $42,000 plus penalties (see Gashi & Anor v FCT [2012] FCA 638). The Commissioner had assessed each taxpayer’s tax liability at $1.6m and calculated penalties amounting to $1.4m for the years in question. The Commissioner has since lodged an appeal to the Full Federal Court.
The Supreme Court said the Federal Court’s order is the subject of an appeal and is therefore not final under s14QQZ of the TAA. Therefore, the assessments against the wife remained in place. The Court also noted that certain property of the wife, may stand in aid of judgment against the husband. Further, it was not of the view that there had been sufficient alteration of the circumstances underlying the decision of Bell J to set aside the freezing order.
(DCT v Gashi & Anor [2012] VSC 401, Victorian Supreme Court, Warren CJ, 6 September 2012.)
[LTN 174, 7/9]