In a decision handed down Mon 30.9.2013, the AAT affirmed a decision of the Commissioner denying input tax credits (ITCs) claimed by a taxpayer on the basis that the taxpayer did not carry on an enterprise.
The taxpayer contended that she had attempted to conduct a services business that comprised an “enterprise” within the meaning of s 9-20 of the GST Act. The taxpayer claimed ITCs in respect of various purchases in the relevant review periods (March 2009 quarter to March 2012 quarter). The Commissioner issued an assessment of GST net amount for each of the review periods denying the ITCs claimed.
The AAT noted the evidence led by the taxpayer was “imprecise” and there was a lack of corroborating evidence. Broadly, the taxpayer’s evidence was that before she was required to serve a term of imprisonment, she tried to start a services business that involved use of a motor vehicle. However, the attempts straddled her term of imprisonment and did not succeed. Any records she had of the purchases she made for her business were lost or destroyed. One of the ITCs claimed was for her home, though she claimed she had not been asked to produce documentation for it.
The AAT was not satisfied that the evidence led demonstrated that there was an enterprise. It said a taxpayer, on review of an objection decision, does not satisfy the burden of proving that an assessment is excessive by giving personal testimony of an “imprecise nature and detail without any corroborating evidence of either the activities undertaken, or of the reasons why the corroborating evidence of those activities is not available”. It also held the taxpayer was not entitled to the ITCs claimed.
(AAT Case [2013] AATA 701, AAT, Ref No: 2012/5543, O’Loughlin SM, 30 September 2013.)
[LTN 189, 30/9/13]