The ATO on Fri 2.5.2014, issued a Decision Impact Statement on the Full Federal Court’s decision in Rigoli v FCT [2014] FCAFC 29.
In that decision, the Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal concerning default assessments that had been issued to him under s 167 of the ITAA 1936 for the 1994 to 2001 income years. The matter related primarily to claims for depreciation for certain items of plant and equipment used in a partnership business – in circumstances where the AAT in AAT Case [2012] AATA 757, Re Rigoli and FCT had proceeded by first permitting the taxpayer’s “concession” in accepting the Commissioner’s estimate of his income and then determining that the only issue remaining was the taxpayer’s claims for the depreciation expenses.
On appeal, in FCT v Rigoli [2013] FCA 784, the Federal Court held the taxpayer had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the assessments were excessive and remitted the matter to the AAT for redetermination. The Full Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, finding that the “reasoning and conclusions of the primary judge were entirely correct”. It found the taxpayer’s burden of proof was not discharged by the “concession” made. It also dismissed the Commissioner’s cross-appeal against the primary judge’s orders to remit the matter to the AAT for redetermination.
The ATO said the Full Court’s decision was consistent with the Commissioner’s view on what is required by a taxpayer in a tax appeal to discharge the onus of showing that an assessment issued under s 167 was excessive. The ATO said it also respectfully accepted the decision of the Full Court on the Commissioner’s cross-appeal.
[LTN 82, 2/5/14]