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 - Tax Debts - Writs and Warrants of Execution

Date: October 24, 2011

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

A writ or warrant of execution (hereafter “warrant”) is issued by a court to authorise its sheriff or bailiff to seize assets of the judgment debtor and sell it to pay the judgment debt amount.

The Commissioner will sometimes prosecute a tax debtor. After the Commissioner has obtained a favourable judgment, he may then proceed to the use of a warrant.

When warrants are used

The Commissioner will tend to use warrants when they seem the most effective technique available, particularly when:

  • the debt is small and is not likely to escalate;
  • the Commissioner knows of debtor assets that may be used to pay off the debt; or
  • where the Commissioner fails to identify debtor assets but believes them to exist.

Often the Commissioner will use the warrant as an encouragement to the debtor to pay the debt promptly or enter a payment arrangement. In such a situation the seized assets might not actually be sold.

The Commissioner will normally proceed to a warrant after judgment when:

  • the debtor certainly has sufficient assets to pay the debt; or
  • the debtor possesses equity in any form of real estate (including co-ownership rights).

Factors

The Commissioner will take into account the circumstances of the case, including:

  • whether the debtor is a joint owner of real property, in which case forced sale may be difficult;
  • whether the debtor’s assets are clearly short of the full judgment debt, in which case a warrant for partial satisfaction may be issued; and
  • whether other creditors have issued warrants and therefore take priority over the ATO, in which case bankruptcy can be the best option.

Example: Issuing of a warrant

The Commissioner prosecutes V, a bookmaker with severe tax debts. The prosecution succeeds. V is simultaneously prosecuted by two other creditors, and these prosecutions also succeed. V is required to pay her tax debt.

The tax debt is for $15,000. The Commissioner contemplates asking the court to issue a warrant for the judgment debt. He is reluctant to bankrupt V because she is expecting a large rise in her business income in the next few years.

V’s tax debt is relatively small and is not escalating. She has no equity in real property, as she rents. However, the Commissioner notes that V owns two cars, worth a total of $13,000 for both. These are her only significant assets that are easy to seize.

The Commissioner knows that this will not satisfy the entire judgment debt. However, he feels that issuing a warrant for partial satisfaction over these cars and having them seized is very likely to encourage V to enter a payment arrangement.

Before the Commissioner can act, V’s two other creditors get the court to issue warrants for the payment of their own debts. The two cars are seized. Because such warrants are given priority on a first in first out basis, it is now futile for the Commissioner to issue a warrant. He therefore bankrupts V.

Conclusion

Writs and warrants of execution can be strategically applied by the Commissioner to try to force a tax debtor to pay a judgment debt quickly. Having assets seized by a court can be a distressing and confusing experience. Call LAC Lawyers for advice and assistance in respect of writs and warrants.

 

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