Thank you kindly for all the work that you've done on my and my wife's behalf. A big pressure has been taken off our chests

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

Tax Law - Defending tax debts

Date: February 22, 2012

Authors: Frank Egan B.A., LL.B., A.C.L.A., F.T.I.A. (Notary)

Part IVC of the TAA allows taxpayers to challenge assessments seeking a review and the AAT or by appeal to the Federal Court. Section 14ZZR of the TAA states that “the fact that an appeal is pending in relation to a taxation decision does not in the meantime interfere with, or affect, the decision and any tax, additional tax or other amount may be recovered as if no appeal were pending.” In other words once the notice of assessment has issued that is the end of the matter even where an appeal is pending. Section 14ZZM is in similar terms but it only deals with the decisions to the AAT and should not be forgotten.

The import of the sections is this:- Where a notice of assessment has been issued the Commissioner can proceed to collect the tax and if it is not paid and 50% of the amount in dispute is not forthcoming then he can proceed by either making an individual taxpayer bankrupt or alternatively wind up the company. This can have iniquitous results and although the sections are there to protect the revenue they have operated unfair in some instances against taxpayers both large or small.

Where the Commissioner appoints a trustee in bankruptcy and/or where the official receiver becomes the trustee, the trustee has no interest in fighting the objection in the AAT. As a consequence the taxpayer loses their right to appeal and is made bankrupt without ever having the right to challenge the assessment. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Under the Bankruptcy Act as soon as a person is made bankrupt any action in which they are involved is stayed unless the trustee makes an election in writing to prosecute or continue the action. There is a remote chance the trustee will exercise his discretion in the taxpayer’s favour and it is obvious that this will not occur where there are insufficient funds to meet the claims of creditors.

These provisions were introduced into the tax acts to ensure that the Commissioner is in a position of special advantage in relation to the recovery of tax debts. Each and every state or territory court retains the discretion to stay a recovery tax judgment in special circumstances. In DCT v Denlay (2000) QCT 217 the Queensland Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland to grant a stay of enforcement of a judgment covering outstanding tax, penalties and interest in favour of the Commissioner. The majority’s decision which was written by Chesterman J.A. allows the continuation of the stay which prevented the Commissioner from bankrupting the taxpayers, allowing the taxpayers to continue a Federal Court appeal under Part IVC of the TAA 1953 against the amended assessments and effectively curtailed to some extent the Commissioner’s administrative power to issue what could prove to be an incontestable assessment.

Denlay’s case is an important one as it addressed Rule 800 of the Queensland Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the power to grant and further extend the stay of recovery proceedings dealt with by Lyons J. under these rules. More importantly he considered the criteria set out by French J. (who is now the Chief Justice of the High Court) in the Federal Court decision of Snow v DCT (1987) ATR439 (at p.458) later confirmed that French J. in DCT v Warwick (No.2) (2004) 56 ATR371 (at p.396) as to the exercise of discretion to grant or refuse a stay of execution. 

French J. recognized the power of state courts in state recovery proceedings instituted in them under the ITAA is well established but limited by the following:

  1. It recognizes that the Commissioner has priority when it comes to the recovery of revenue even where the taxpayer has lodged an appeal against his assessment.

  2. The power to grant a stay can only be exercised sparingly and the onus is always on the taxpayer to justify it.

  3. The merits of the taxpayer’s appeal have to be looked at when taking into account whether to exercise the discretion or a stay will not usually be granted where the taxpayer is a party to a contrivance to avoid the payment of their tax liability.

  4. A stay may be granted where there is an abuse of office by the Commissioner or extreme personal hardship to the taxpayer who is being called on to pay.

  5. The mere imposition of the obligation to pay does not constitute hardship.

  6. The existence of a request for an objection where appeal is a factor is relevant to the exercise of the discretion.

Extreme Personal Hardship

The Court of Appeal in Denlay had to consider the possibility of the taxpayer being made bankrupt and therefore being unable to continue their Part IVC appeal in the Federal Court constituted extreme personal hardship. The Commissioner relied upon DCT and Ho to disallow an appeal in these circumstances. Interestingly Ireland J. at p.274 stated “…. It is preposterous to contend that the loss of the respondent’s entire estate and with it any chance of demonstrating that the basis for the assessment were wrong so that they should not have lost their property, could not be a hardship rightly called extreme. It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context.” 

The ATO also tried to contend there was no sufficient likelihood of a bankruptcy and it should be left in the hands of a court dealing with a bankruptcy petition. Chesterman J.A. rejected this because: “it seeks to deprive the Supreme Court altogether of its power to stay execution in appropriate cases.” The effect of the submission was that only a federal judicial officer can stand between a judgment debtor indebted to a Deputy Commissioner and bankruptcy. Despite this it should never be forgotten that, as a general rule successfully obtaining a stay of recovery proceedings is the exception rather than the rule. 

Conclusion

The Commissioner of Taxation’s power under S.171(1) of ITAA 1936 can be contested. State Supreme Courts have the power to stay execution in appropriate cases where proceedings have been initiated in them but it is only exercised sparingly. Taxpayers who have problems paying their tax debts should contact LAC Lawyers now for effective, professional advice and representation as soon as they arise to forestall further problems.

 

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