The AAT has found that it has jurisdiction to entertain a review of an objection decision that affirmed assessments of net GST amounts and net fuel credit amounts owed by a taxpayer.
- Monthly BASs were lodged in the name of the taxpayer’s business for the July 2010 and August 2010 periods.
- Both BASs resulted in refunds, $9,695 for July 2010, and $8,791 for August 2010.
- The refunds were deposited into a third party bank account nominated over the phone, according to the Commissioner.
- The Commissioner subsequently conducted an audit of the taxpayer’s business and issued amended assessments requiring the taxpayer to pay back the refund issued after finding the taxpayer was not conducting a business.
- The taxpayer contended that he had been a victim of identity fraud and did not lodge the BASs in question.
- The taxpayer then applied to the Tribunal to review the decision and reach a view about the fraud so he could be relieved of the obligation to pay the debt.
- The Commissioner argued the AAT did not have jurisdiction to review the decision as the taxpayer was not technically “dissatisfied” with the objection decision as required by s14ZZ(1)(a)(i) of the TAA.
The Tribunal accepted that the taxpayer was dissatisfied with the objection decision and a review of that decision necessarily extended to its factual basis, which included the agreed facts by both parties such as there was no business being carried on. However, the AAT said the factual basis may also include the disputed allegation that the taxpayer never claimed the credits in the first place. It said if that allegation were made out, the assessment would necessarily be amended to show the taxpayer did not have any liability at all arising out of the transactions referred to in the BAS. Therefore, it held that it had jurisdiction to review the objection decision and the taxpayer’s arguments will be addressed at a hearing.
(AAT Case [2014] AATA 396, Re Van Gestel and FCT, AAT, Ref No 2014/0616, McCabe SM, 20 June 2014.)
[LTN 119, 24/6/14]