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 - Promoter penalty laws(Part 4)

Date: February 22, 2012

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

Civil penalties

When civil penalty is appropriate

A civil penalty may be appropriate where the course of conduct has resulted in a TES or where the conduct has been persistent enough to be unlikely to be deterred by other means.

Factors the Commissioner will consider include the following:

  • the entity seems unwilling to modify its behaviour;

  • a history of prohibited conduct;

  • the TES is the main source of the entity’s income; and

the entity has made attempts to block the ATO’s investigations.

Imposition by court

Civil penalties may be sought by the Commissioner, but are ordered by the Federal Court. Thus, civil penalties are imposed after litigation.

The Federal Court must, if imposing civil penalties, be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant entity has engaged in activity subject to the promoter penalty laws.

Calculation of civil penalty

The Commissioner sees the threat of seeking a penalty as an effective deterrant to promoters which can redress monetary imbalances that may arise when a TES is promoted, as between the promoter and the target. The form of the civil penalty is intended to have this effect.

The maximum civil penalty that the Federal Court is permitted to impose is the greater of the following two amounts:

  • the consideration received or receivable by the entity and its associates in respect of the tax scheme; and

  • 5,000 penalty units for individual entities and 25,000 penalty units for corporate entities. Currently, a penalty unit is $110.

Civil penalties are civil debts to the Commonwealth. It is not a tax debt, and can be pursued more harshly than a tax debt.

Statutory injunctions

An injunction is not necessarily for more severe cases than civil penalties. However, by its nature an injunction is suited to urgent situations.

Urgency

The Commissioner may seek an injunction in order to take quick action where the conduct in question is ongoing and where letting it continue would be deleterious. It is more appropriate than a voluntary undertaking where the entity seems intransigent.

Application to court

Again, the Federal Court imposes injunctions, upon application by the Commissioner. Unlike civil penalties, injunctions are sought during actual investigation or other action by the ATO.

The Federal Court can impose two forms of injunction: a restraining injunction to stop the entity from doing something; and a performance injunction compelling the entity to do something.

The Court can also require the Commissioner to give an undertaking to pay compensation if the interim injunction is granted.

When a statutory injunction is appropriate

The Commissioner must weigh up the situation and determine whether seeking an injunction is appropriate. Factors that are relevant include:

  • the potential for future targets to be drawn into a TES;

  • the ongoing revenue risk;

  • the entity is intransigent; and

  • there is an urgency in the situation, such as evidence that the entity is about to engage in a great deal of promotion in the near future.

Conclusion

If you have concerns about promoter penalty laws, call LAC Lawyers and we can provide advice and assistance.

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