The Federal Court has refused a taxpayer leave to appeal from an October 2013 judgment that granted the Commissioner summary judgment concerning the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debts.
The taxpayer controlled several transport companies. He alleged that he sold 2 of the companies to an individual, which explained a number of payments to those companies and to the taxpayer. In the earlier judgment (Roberts v DCT [2013] FCA 1108), the Federal Court said the ATO found the evidence did not support the existence of such a transaction or, in fact, the existence of the individual concerned.
The ATO found the taxpayer had not accounted for all income received during the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2006. The ATO issued s 167 default assessments amending the taxpayer’s taxable income to over $3.7m for the 2003 to 2006 income years inclusive, plus shortfall penalties of id=”mce_marker”.27m. The taxpayer objected to the assessments and the ATO allowed the objections in part which resulted in substantial reductions in the assessment of taxable income and tax.
The Deputy Commissioner had sought summary judgment against the taxpayer under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.
At the same time, the taxpayer sought relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 that the amended assessments be quashed, and a declaration that the amended assessments were invalid pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act.
In its 29 October 2013 decision, the Federal Court found the Deputy Commissioner had made out a case for summary judgment which it granted.
The taxpayer applied for leave to appeal from the decision and the Federal Court refused that application.
(Roberts v DCT [2015] FCA 238, Mansfield J, 19 March 2015.)
[LTN 55, 23/3/15]