Thank you for all of your help. The service was outstanding - all of my questions were answered promptly, everything ran smoothly

M. Elliot
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas

Tax Law - Debt Recovery - False or misleading statements(part 4 of 4)

Date: January 17, 2012

Authors: Jonathan Lim B.A., LL.B. (Hons)

This article deals with the ATO’s power to impose and increase administrative penalties upon unpaid tax debts, in situations where the taxpayer has made a false or misleading statement.

This part of the article deals with “intentional disregard”.

Intentional disregard of the law

As stated in part 3 of this article, there are three levels of culpability with regard to false or misleading statements. In order of increasing culpability they are carelessness, recklessness and intentional disregard.

Intentional disregard is therefore the worst level of culpability for a taxpayer who makes false and misleading statements. A taxpayer will be considered to have intentionally disregarded the law if:

  • the taxpayer had adequate knowledge of the Australian taxation laws;
  • the taxpayer was fully aware of tax obligations; and
  • the taxpayer intentionally and dishonestly disregarded the obligation.

Intentional

The requirement of “intentional” disregard means that something beyond mere carelessness or recklessness is required. The type of attitude may be similar, but a greater degree of disregard must be present.

Subjective nature of test

Unlike both the carelessness and recklessness tests, intentional disregard is a subjective test, testing the taxpayer’s actual intention at the time the statement was made. The actual intention of the taxpayer is a critical element.

The taxpayer must actually be aware that the statement made was false. The entity therefore is required to have adequate knowledge of Australian taxation law to be able to have this level of awareness.

Dishonesty

The taxpayer must also have made a deliberate choice to disregard the law. The disregard must contain the element of dishonesty. This dishonesty is not necessarily present in mere careless or reckless behaviour.

Types of evidence

The evidence the ATO requires to prove subjective knowledge and dishonest disregard may include direct evidence, or inference from the circumstances, including the taxpayer’s conduct. For example, if the taxpayer applied for and received a private ruling from the ATO, and then acted contrary to the ruling, this may be taken as evidence for intentional disregard. However, this will only be the case if the ATO’s ruling related to a well-established principle.

Effect of intentional disregard
Because intentional disregard is more culpable than recklessness or carelessness, the penalty is relatively high. The base penalty will be 75% of the relevant tax shortfall, if any, or if no shortfall exists then 60 penalty units.

Example: Intentional disregard

This example is based on a Federal Court decision.

W was a tax agent who acted on behalf of several clients who were beneficiaries of trusts. He prepared their tax returns, in such a way that he classified trust distributions to these clients as “loans” to them from the trusts.

W had told his clients that the money from the trusts was “their money”. This implied that he was telling them to treat these “loans” with their absolute discretion. Further, W acted as if the “loans” never needed to be repaid and would incur no interest.

On the basis of these pieces of circumstantial evidence, the Federal Court found that W had intentionally disregarded the law in making his misleading statements.

Conclusion
 
If you have concerns about false or misleading statements, call LAC Lawyers and we can provide advice and assistance.

 

 
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas