BXCD and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

This case concerned an application by BXCD (the applicant) to review amended assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had discharged the onus of proof to demonstrate that the amended assessments were excessive. The applicant was a director of two companies, Companies 1 and 2, which were involved in the jewellery business. The Commissioner had issued amended assessments based on significant cash amounts withdrawn from these companies, which the applicant claimed were for payments to suppliers, but which the court found to be bogus transactions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had met her onus of proof to show that the amended assessments were excessive, and whether the Commissioner had the power to issue such notices of amended assessment. The applicant professed ignorance regarding the application of the significant cash amounts withdrawn from the companies, stating she was unaware of the receipt of funds as shown by the accounts. Her sons, who also worked in the business, were not called to give evidence, despite the applicant being invited to call one of them.

Deputy B W Rayment P found that the applicant had failed to discharge the onus of proof. The court noted that the applicant’s explanations for the cash withdrawals were not supported by evidence, and that the transactions were demonstrated to be bogus. The applicant’s assertion that she was merely a director in name and did not manage the business or handle the money was not accepted as sufficient to displace the presumption of correctness attaching to the Commissioner's assessments. The court concluded that the applicant’s role in the management of the companies, coupled with the lack of evidence regarding the application of the withdrawn funds, meant the amended assessments could not be shown to be excessive.

Accordingly, the reviewable decision of the Commissioner was affirmed.