In a procedural matter, the AAT has held that a director of the taxpayer (in liquidation) lacked authority to commence proceedings before it in the name of the taxpayer, but that steps may be taken, which must be pursued in a timely manner, to remedy the lack of authority. In doing so, the AAT made no orders.
- On 25 January 2012, the sole director (and a shareholder) of the taxpayer was granted leave in the NSW Supreme Court (Gzell J) to lodge an objection in the name of the taxpayer against an amended assessment and penalty issued by the Commissioner for the 2006 income year.
- The amended assessment was issued in November 2011 and arose out of an ATO audit following information provided by the liquidator of the taxpayer.
- The Commissioner disallowed the objection and, on 18 March 2012 on the instructions of the director, an application for review of the objection decision was lodged in the name of the taxpayer.
The AAT was not satisfied that the terms of leave granted by Gzell J extended to an application for review of the objection decision before the Tribunal. The AAT concluded the director did not have authority to make the application for review in the name of the taxpayer but said the application was capable of being validated if the director obtains retrospective leave from the Court to effectively “ratify” the commencement. Therefore, the AAT decided it should make no orders on the basis that neither dismissal nor adjournment was appropriate at this stage.
(AAT Case [2013] AATA 690, Re ACN 092 138 442 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) and FCT, AAT, Ref No: 2013/1203, Redfern SM, 27 September 2013.)
[LTN 189, 30/9/13]