A Deputy Commissioner of Taxation has been successful before the Qld District Court in seeking summary judgment against an individual for a director penalty arising from unpaid PAYG liabilities of a company.
The individual did not contest most of the material facts relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner. He accepted that the company failed to pay amounts withheld from employees’ salaries on the relevant dates during his directorship. The sum in dispute was $274,018. On 13 January 2012, the husband resigned as director and his wife was appointed as director in his place. All the due days relating to the Deputy Commissioner’s claim occurred before this date. On 25 January 2012, the company first notified the Deputy Commissioner of the amounts withheld from employees’ salaries. On 28 August 2012, administrators were appointed to the company.
The husband argued that the liability of the company and its directors was parallel and joint and several, with the effect that the remission of his wife’s penalty discharged both the company’s and his liability. The Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument. It examined the relevant director penalty provisions, and in particular, noted that the application of s 269-30 of Sch 1 to the TAA (concerning the remission of a director penalty) applied to him differently to that of his wife.
The husband also argued that he took all reasonable steps to ensure the directors complied with their obligations taking into account his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. However, the Court said the defence and particulars did not identify reasonable steps by reference to the entire period that was relevant to the claim (ie from 1 July 2009 to 28 August 2012).
(DCT v Keane [2014] QDC 286, Qld District Court, Kingham DCJ, 12 December 2014.)
[LTN 242, 15/12/14]