The AAT has held that an individual was not a person who was entitled to apply for review of reviewable objection decisions made by the Commissioner. The Tribunal also refused the individual’s request to extend the time within which to lodge an application for review of the objection decisions.
The individual, in his own name in various capacities, sought an extension of time to lodge applications seeking review of objection decisions in relation to 3 entities: the OenoViva (Australia & New Zealand) Plant and Equipment Trust (P&E Trust), the OenoViva (Australia & New Zealand) Plant and Equipment Trust No 2 (P&E Trust No 2), and the Andrew Garrett Family Trust No. 3 (Family Trust No 3). Generally, the issues concerned GST refunds, GST registration cancellation and input tax credit claims.
The individual’s applications were out of time, hence the request for extension. After comprehensively reviewing the matter, the Tribunal decided not to extend the time within which the individual could lodge each of the applications. It found he was not a person who was entitled to make an application for review of the Commissioner’s objection decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal said there was no basis on which it could consider his applications for extension of time within which to lodge an application.
[In an August 2014 decision (in Re The Trustee of Oenoviva (Australia & New Zealand) Plant and Equipment Trust and FCT  AATA 614), the individual was unsuccessful before the AAT in seeking to have standing and authority to act on behalf of another entity (a trustee of a trust) in relation to 2 applications concerning a claim for input tax credits that had been denied and an imposition of an administrative penalty.]
(Re Andrew Garrett in his capacity as an Authorised Officer of the OenoViva (Australia & New Zealand) Plant & Equipment Trust No 2 and Ors and FCT  AATA 247, AAT, Forgie DP, File Nos: 2014/4068, 4070, 4071, 24 April 2015.)
[LTN 79, 28/4/15]
FJM Note – what is the ‘authorised officer’ and why he couldn’t apply for review
Andrew Garret had been disqualified from being a director of the relevant corporate trustees for dishonest dealings (para ) and then sought to be appointed as the power of attorney of these companies (para ) notwithstanding that s206A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 made it an offence for such a disqualified person to be involved in the management of the company. The Tribunal held that s14ZZ(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 only allowed the trustee of these trusts to object and apply for review (and it appears that Mr Garrett’s criminal attempt to speak for the corporate trustee did not ‘cut the mustard’).