Bloom and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Bloom for a review of administrative penalty assessments made by the Commissioner of Taxation for the income years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009. Mr Bloom did not dispute the primary tax assessments for these years, acknowledging a lack of documentation for 2002 and that his proposed taxable income figures for other years were close to or exceeded the Commissioner's assessments. The dispute centred on the correctness of the administrative penalties applied, including an initial 75% penalty and a subsequent 20% increase.

The court was required to determine whether the administrative penalties imposed by the Commissioner were correctly applied and whether there were grounds to remit these penalties. Specifically, the court had to consider the applicant's arguments against the penalties, particularly in light of his failure to lodge income tax returns by their due dates and his claims regarding the Commissioner's communication and the address to which notices were sent. The court also had to assess the evidence presented by Mr Bloom, including witness statements and financial documents, in light of his inability to attend the hearing for cross-examination due to a medical condition.

The Deputy President found that Mr Bloom had failed to discharge his onus to prove that the administrative penalties were excessive or otherwise incorrect. While acknowledging Mr Bloom's medical condition and accepting his written statements into evidence, the Deputy President noted that the Commissioner would have otherwise sought cross-examination. The Deputy President concluded that there was no basis for exercising the discretion to remit the penalties, affirming the Commissioner's decision.