The AAT had to decide whether to release a taxpayer from his debt
The AAT had to decide whether an applicant should be given more time to contest her tax assessment.
A taxpayer required to work from home on-call could claim some expenses associated with occupying his home for work.
The applicants sought a review of a decision from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to ban them from providing financial services. The AAT found that the applicants each contravened a financial services law and that the power to ban them was established.
In this matter the Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Commissioner of Taxation relating to input tax credits for a business involved in gold refinery.
In this case, the applicant lodged two proposed business names with ASIC’s online lodgement service. ASIC refused to register both names on the grounds that they were both considered to be identical or nearly identical to other registered names. The AAT had to determine if there was discretion for a human decision maker to intervene and apply common sense principles to whether the proposed business name is identical to another.
The research and development (R&D) tax incentive is a program that allows businesses to access tax offsets for the money they spend on R&D activities. These R&D activities must be registered with Innovation and Science Australia (the respondent). The AAT agreed with the respondent and was not satisfied that any of the registered activities identified in the Industry and Research Development Act 1986 (Cth) were conducted by or on behalf of the applicant.
The applicant had provided the NSW government with driverless trains that now run on the Sydney metro system. Seeking a Tariff Concession Order (TCO) to import driverless trains free of duty, the applicant asked the AAT to review the Comptroller-General of Custom’s decision not to issue the TCO.
This review was about amended tax assessments issued to the applicant increasing his tax liability. The primary issue concerned the calculation of penalties arising from the applicant’s conduct in relation to his incorrect tax returns, specifically administrative penalties and shortfall interest charges.
The applicant in this matter claimed certain relocation expenses were tax deductible because they were work related. The AAT affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation's decision disallowing the tax deduction. The AAT discussed the relationship required between the expenses and employment to result in tax deductibility.
The AAT affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s decision to issue amended income tax assessments to the applicant for two income years. The issue in the matter was about a number of third party payments that the applicant received over the two financial years in question.
The applicant was due to have her bankruptcy discharged until the trustee objected because the applicant had transferred assets to prevent creditors from accessing them The AAT reviewed the evidence and investigated the transfer.
The applicant objected to the validity of the transfer of a registered business name, within the context of the national business name registration scheme. The AAT affirmed that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission had no discretion in the matter and registration was required.
The applicant claimed $8,130 in tax deductions related to overtime meal allowances, the Commissioner of Taxation disallowed the claim as the meals didn't meet the necessary requirements. The AAT affirmed the decision
The applicant in this matter was prohibited from leaving Australia by the Commissioner of Taxation because of his outstanding $33 million tax debt. The AAT reviewed the Commissioner's decision to refuse the applicant a Departure Authorisation Certificate to visit the UK. The AAT affirmed the decision.
The applicant failed to lodge income tax returns for a number of years and the Commissioner of Taxation made default assessments of his income. The applicant objected to the assessments and the Commissioner disallowed the objection. the Tribunal affirmed the decision.
The Commissioner of Taxation issued amended tax assessments to the applicant and also imposed administrative penalties on the basis that the applicant made false statements in her assessments which suggested a reckless disregard for the law. The Tribunal was not persuaded the applicant had demonstrated the commissioner’s assessments were excessive and affirmed the Commissioner’s decisions.
A delegate of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission made a banning order which prohibited the applicant from providing any financial services due to market manipulation. The Tribunal affirmed this decision.