The AAT has refused an application by husband and wife taxpayers to reopen a hearing (which the AAT had already heard but had reserved its decision) to allow the taxpayers to call additional witnesses – one of whom was the husband who was not called in the original proceedings. The matter related to amended assessments issued to the taxpayers in respect of alleged undeclared income from their business on the basis of evasion, which the Commissioner arrived at by using a “T-Account” method to determine the undeclared amounts.
Before the AAT, the taxpayers sought to discharge their onus of proving the assessments were excessive by calling on evidence from accountants they had engaged for the purpose of showing that the T-account method used by the Commissioner was flawed and did not reflect the taxpayers’ true income position. At the same time the taxpayer-wife, who was employed in the business in relation to the maintenance of business records, gave evidence on their behalf. However, the husband who dealt with the sales and sat in the AAT throughout the proceedings, was not called to give evidence because of his health and English language problems.
In refusing to allow the taxpayers’ application to reopen the hearing to allow fresh evidence from the husband and their personal accountant, the AAT took into account a range of matters including; that the husband was present in the hearing room and could have been called to give evidence but instead they deliberately refrained from calling him (and an interpreter was available for this purpose); if a rehearing was granted, the integrity of his evidence would be questionable given he had the prior opportunity to lead it; and, the AAT did not have an “unfettered discretion” to allow the introduction of new evidence when reviewing assessments.
The AAT also commented that the reasons sought for applying to reopen the hearing were more of a “belated attempt to shore up the applicants’ evidence regarding the true assessable income derived by the partnership” in the face of the “heavy weather” they ran into in trying to discharge their onus of proof on the basis of attacking the “T-account method”.
(AAT Case [2013] AATA 382, Ref Nos 2011/2873 – 2011/2877, 2011/2879 – 2011/2883 and 2011/2884 – 2011/2888, Fice SM, 6 June 2013.)
[LTN 109, 7/6/13]