Anita and Decision Maker

[2019] AATA 4239

Anita and Decision Maker [2019] AATA 4239 (4 October 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/5514

Re:Anita Anita

APPLICANT

Decision MakerAnd  

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member C.J. Furnell 

Date:4 October 2019

Date of written reasons:        17 October 2019

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal dismisses the application for review lodged by the applicant on 3 September 2019.

......[sgd]..................................................................

Senior Member C.J. Furnell

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction – whether there is a decision – the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of the application for review

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member C.J. Furnell

17 October 2019

1. The applicant, identified as Ms Anita, lodged with the Tribunal on 3 September 2019 an application for review.

2. By letter dated 24 September 2019 the applicant was advised that the question of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the matter would be considered at a hearing on 4 October 2019.

3. At the conclusion of the hearing on 4 October 2019 I decided that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the relevant application. I provided reasons for that decision. I now provide them in writing, at the applicant’s request.

4. Before proceeding to those reasons, however, I should say something about the form of the application for review lodged by the applicant with the Tribunal and the context in which the hearing took place.

5. As to the form of the application for review, in the section requiring the applicant to briefly describe the decision to be reviewed, the applicant stated:

   “Kindly accept standard fees $932 along with this application in order to file my tax return this year (2019). Apart from this I need to discuss briefly about my previous years [sic] tax return in order to resolve the issue regarding my superannuation account, tax file number, ABN number Centrelink and CRN no (received by ANZ bank).”

6. In the section of the application requiring the applicant to identify why she believed the decision which she sought to have reviewed is wrong, the applicant stated (amongst other things) that:

   “I need to discuss about my residential home in which I was living since 2014. Unfortunately I was paying taxes here on my non-resident tax file number which I forgot to update. Anyhow last year I have update [sic] it.”

7. By letter to the applicant dated 4 September 2019 the Tribunal noted that her application did not identify the decision she wanted to have reviewed and stated that the Tribunal needed this information to make sure that it had the power to review the relevant decision. The applicant was then asked to provide a copy of that decision within 14 days. The applicant did not do so.

8. On 17 September 2019, in an email to the Tribunal’s Melbourne Registry, the applicant stated, amongst other things:

   “As i have already explained to ATO officer and showed all evidence regarding my tax file number, ABN number, house related document which i received from Centrelink last year in oct 2018, superannuation account and CRN number from ANZ bank, Commonwealth account when I visited ATO administrator office which is located 15 Williams Street Melbourne VIC 3000 during last week of August. On 3^rd Sep I have submitted my application along fee in the same branch… I hope this above information will be helpful for organise hearing for my case in ATO office on personal level.”

9. I pause to note that this email is suggestive of some confusion in the mind of the applicant given that the address identified is the address of the Tribunal’s Melbourne offices, not the address of the Australian Taxation Office.

10. This suggestion is reinforced when regard is had to a subsequent email of 17 September 2019 from the applicant to the Tribunal’s Melbourne Registry. In that subsequent email the applicant stated, amongst other things:

    “Actually i am really confuse [sic] to understand which office has authority to resolve issues regarding renewal permanent visa, tax file number issue since 2011 including filing tax return for this year, centrelink issue regarding my unit house which is taken away from me because of third party interference in my case, commonwealth and ANZ bank issue related to my salary and superannuation account… Please I need some guideline from your side in order to arrange meeting with my case officer in ATO office and how can get early financial aid in order to organise my home in Melbourne which I was renting since 2014.”

11. At the hearing on 4 October 2019 I told the applicant that the Tribunal is not an arm of the Australian Taxation Office, that the Tribunal is a body empowered to review certain decisions and that, in determining whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction in the matter, it was first necessary to identify the particular decision which the applicant was seeking to have reviewed. These points were made repeatedly to the applicant throughout the course of the hearing. At no stage, however, did she identify any particular decision she wanted to have reviewed.

12. The Tribunal does not have inherent jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction it does have is conferred by statute. Specifically, under section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an enactment may provide that an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision made in exercise of a power conferred by that enactment.

13. Hence, in addressing the threshold issue of jurisdiction in any particular matter, it is first necessary to identify the particular decision which the applicant is seeking to have reviewed and then determine whether that decision is one for which an enactment provides for Tribunal review.

14. In this matter, not even the first aspect of this threshold issue has been addressed. Neither in her application for review, nor at the hearing on 4 October 2019, did the applicant identify any particular decision. Instead, in essence, she simply sought to involve the Tribunal in discussions concerning a range of issues on which she was seeking advice and direction.

15. The Tribunal is given jurisdiction to review certain decisions and, in doing so, it must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that meets certain characteristics. It is not an advisory body.

16. In the absence of any identified (or, indeed, identifiable) relevant decision, I have decided that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter or matters raised by the applicant in her application for review.

I certify that the preceding 16 (sixteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of Senior Member C.J. Furnell.

.....[sgd]...................................................................

Associate

Dated: 17 October 2019

Date(s) of hearing:	4 October 2019
Applicant:	By telephone