Burt and Decision Maker

[2016] AATA 985

Burt and Decision Maker [2016] AATA 985 (9 November 2016)

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)	2016/4958
Re	Tracey Burt
APPLICANT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal	Egon Fice, Senior Member
Date of Decision	9 November 2016
Date of Reasons	2 December 2016
Place	Melbourne

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision for which the Applicant had lodged an application for review.

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

Egon Fice, Senior Member

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - jurisdiction - application to review purported decision of Inspector-General of Taxation - where no power to review conferred under an enactment - where no jurisdiction to review purported decision.  

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s. 25.
Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003 (Cth) s. 7.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Egon Fice, Senior Member

2 December 2016

1. Ms Tracey Burt lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking review of a decision which appears to be the decision of the Inspector-General of Taxation.  According to a letter dated 8 September 2016 from the person describing themselves as Senior Tax Complaints and Review Officer, Ms Burt was concerned that the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) failed to investigate complaints she had made about an accounting office, BDS Huon.  The complaint appeared to be that one of BDS Huon’s employees had disclosed confidential information about clients to third parties without consent.

2. The letter from the Senior Tax Complaints and Review Officer explained to Ms Burt that the Inspector-General of Taxation did not have jurisdiction to deal with her complaint nor, for that matter, did the TPB.  Apparently enquiries were made with the TPB which responded that more was needed by way of evidence to substantiate Ms Burt’s claim.  Furthermore, the TPB would consider commencing an investigation if one of the clients of BDS Huon complained of such breaches but that without further evidence, they would not be able to continue with an investigation.

3. Regardless, Ms Burt lodged an application with this Tribunal, although it is unclear as to whether she was seeking a review of the decision made by the TPB or that of the Inspector-General of Taxation.

4. This matter was set down for a hearing to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with Ms Burt’s application.  I held that hearing by telephone on 9 November 2016 and concluded that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Ms Burt’s application.  I provided Ms Burt with my oral reasons for coming to that conclusion.  That decision was notified to Ms Burt the following day.

5. In an email received by the Tribunal on 25 November 2016, Ms Burt requested a copy of the decision which I gave on 9 November 2016.  I understood that to be a request for written reasons.  These are those reasons.

   THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION

6. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction enabling it to review certain decisions is found in s. 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act). Relevantly, it provides:

   (1) An enactment may provide that applications may be made to the Tribunal:

   (a)for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment; or

   (b)for the review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.

   (2)…

   (3) Were an enactment makes provision in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), that enactment:

   (a)shall specify the person or persons to whose decision is the provision applies;

   (b)may be expressed to apply to all decisions of the person, or to a class of such decision; and

   (c)may specify conditions subject to which applications may be made.

7. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, is not permitted to review decisions at large.  It is limited to decisions made under a statute which expressly provides that a decision may be reviewed by the Tribunal.  In fact, the statute which it is claimed gives rise to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, must specify the person or persons whose decision may be reviewed and may specify conditions on which such an application may be made.  Without an express provision in a statute for review of a particular decision, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

8. The Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003 (IGT Act) establishes the office of the Inspector-general of Taxation. The functions of the Inspector-general are set out in s. 7 of that Act. Essentially, that involves investigating actions or matters dealt with by a tax official. The expression tax official is defined in the Act to include a Board member of the TPB. However, no provision whatsoever is made in the IGT Act for a review of a decision made by the Inspector-General of Taxation. That being the case, it should be obvious that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review findings made by the Inspector-General of Taxation.

9. In fact the letter from the Inspector-General’s office dated 8 September 2016 makes it clear that a person not satisfied with the decision made by that office may contact a research organisation engaged by the Inspector-General’s office and complete a survey which will assist the Inspector-General in improving its service to the taxpaying community.

   CONCLUSION

10. Without an express provision in the IGT Act allowing a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision with which Ms Burt is plainly dissatisfied.

11.     I certify that the preceding 10 (ten) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons of Egon Fice, Senior Member

......................................................

Associate

Dated   2 December 2016

Date of hearing	9 November 2016
Applicant	By Telephone