The Supreme Court of Victoria has dismissed an application by a taxpayer to set aside a Deputy Commissioner’s statutory demand for payment of a Running Balance Account (RBA) deficit debt of over $320,000.
The taxpayer argued that the demand should be set aside on the basis that it did not particularise the various component or “constituent parts” of the RBA debt. However, in dismissing the taxpayer’s application, the Court relied on authority to the effect that a statutory demand is not defective if only one amount is claimed in the demand despite there being a number of constituent debts making up the total debt. The Court also noted that an RBA deficit debt is a single debt. The Court therefore concluded that it was not necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to specify in the statutory demand the individual primary tax debts that comprised the RBA deficit debt.
The Court also dismissed the taxpayer’s claim that there was a genuine dispute over the amount owing as the taxpayer had not provided any evidence to that effect. [The RBA debts may not have had the advantage of the conclusivity provisions applicable to other tax debts, making the lack of evidence material.]
(Zampbeacon Pty Ltd v DCT [2013] VSC 546, Supreme Court of Victoria, Gardiner AJ, 11 October 2013.)
[LTN 201, 17/10/13]