CHU & BEYERSDORF

[2016] FamCA 1188

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHU & BEYERSDORF [2016] FamCA 1188

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Referral of papers to the Commissioner of Taxation and Department of Human Services for consideration as to whether any of the laws of Australia have been broken.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Chu

RESPONDENT: Mr Beyersdorf

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3587 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 14 December 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 7 September 2016 (followed by written submissions)

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Maddox

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: LLL The Law Firm

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Campton S.C.

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barkus Doolan

Orders

1. For consideration as to whether any of the laws of Australia have been broken, the Sydney Registry Manager of the Family Court of Australia refer to the below named persons copies of the following documents:-

   (a)this order;

   (b)the respondent husband’s outline of case document;

   (c)the respondent husband’s affidavit sworn 14 June 2016 and filed 15 June 201 (including annexures);

   (d)the wife’s outline of case document;

   (e)the wife’s financial statement filed 19 July 2016;

   (f)the wife’s affidavit sworn and filed 19 July 2016; and

   (g)the reasons for these orders.

   The named persons being:-

   (a)Chris Jordan, AO the Commissioner of Taxation, Australian Taxation Office, Locked Bag 6050 Dandenong VIC 3175 relating to Ms Chu (also known as Ms May); and

   (b)Kathryn Campbell, CSC, Secretary, Department of Human Services, PO Box 7820 Canberra ACT 2610 relating to Ms Chu (also known as Ms May - CRN …S).

2. The Secretary of the Department of Human Services and/or The Commissioner of Taxation or their nominated delegate/s shall have photocopy access to all documents filed and/or in relation to these proceedings and leave is granted for the Secretary and Commissioner and their delegate/s to obtain copies of transcripts of evidence given in these proceedings (at their own expense) for use in relation to any investigations pursuant to these directions.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym & Chu & Beyersdorf has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3587 of 2012

Ms Chu

Applicant

And

Mr Beyersdorf

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Ms Chu (‘the wife’) and Mr Beyersdorf (‘the husband’) were engaged in proceedings regarding property which, after some days of hearing, was settled on 7 September 2016.

2. During the course of the proceedings serious issues were raised regarding allegations that the wife had been in receipt of Centrelink benefits for many years and was at the same time earning substantial income.

3. Serious allegations were made that the wife had earned significant income from rental of properties to students and that the wife had had not lodged taxation returns.

4. If those allegations were accurate it is likely that the wife may be required to pay significant funds to the Commissioner of Taxation and may be required to pay back tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the Department of Human Services.  She may face serious criminal charges.

5. At the time consent orders were made, I raised with the parties as to whether I ought or ought not to refer the papers and documents relating to the wife to the Commission of Taxation and the Department of Human Services for consideration as to whether any of the laws of Australia have been broken.

6. The wife’s counsel sought to make submissions and they were forwarded to the Court and dated 20 September 2016.

7. A transcript was ordered and a copy of that transcript was made available to counsel for the wife, although no further submissions were made.

8. The Court has made no findings in relation to the truthfulness or otherwise of the wife, who was cross examined, nor of the truthfulness or otherwise of the husband, who was not cross-examined.  

9. The submission on behalf of the wife, in so far as Centrelink was concerned, seems to relate to the status of the parties’ relationship, specifically whether they were in a de facto relationship or whether they were not in a de facto relationship.  That is a feature, but only one of two.  The other is of course the question of the income that the wife may or may not have been earning at the same time as she was in receipt of Centrelink benefits. It may also include property which the wife owns or in which she had has an equitable interest at the time that she was receiving Centrelink benefits. I considered all of the submissions made on the wife’s behalf.

10. The evidence of the husband and the implicit and explicit allegation of tax and Centrelink fraud are of a very serious nature. The amounts involved may be in the tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars improperly collected by the wife or tax evaded by her.  Given the detail of the evidence and the nature of those submissions and notwithstanding the submissions made by counsel for the wife, I determine that it is appropriate for me to refer this matter in the manner which I had indicated. 

11. Accordingly, I will so order that referral.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 14 December 2016.

Associate:     

Date:  14 December 2016