The AAT has held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a taxpayer’s application for review of the ATO’s ‘re-raising’ of the taxpayer’s debts for unpaid PAYG instalments, GST and GIC.
In December 2011, the ATO informed the taxpayer that, as a result of the lodgment of his tax return for the year ended 30 June 2011, a debt of $45,993.31 had been “re-raised”. That is, while the Commissioner had previously decided (in May 2010) not to pursue recovery of the debt, on the basis it was considered that it was not economical to do so, the Commissioner now considered recovery to be viable and sought to recover that amount. The debt comprised primary tax debts (PAYG instalments and GST) and GIC recorded in the integrated client account of a business the taxpayer carried on as a sole trader.
The taxpayer replied to the ATO’s correspondence by letter, which he described as a “letter of objection”, but the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the Commissioner’s response to that letter did not constitute an objection decision capable of review by the Tribunal. Rather, as the Commissioner contended, the AAT said it was essentially a response to a complaint by the taxpayer.
The Tribunal’s view was that it was not possible to identify a decision capable of review by the Tribunal upon which the taxpayer’s application might properly be founded. The Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the taxpayer’s application for review and dismissed it.
(AAT Case [2013] AATA 435, Re Matthews and FCT, Alpins DP, AAT Refs: 2012/5147-5152, 26 June 2013.)
[FJM Note: BAS liabilities have to be resisted as debts based on whether they have been correctly raised or not. There is no ‘conclusivity’ advantage to the Commissioner, and no reservation of these issues to Part IVC review.]
[LTN 122, 27/6/13]