CJYB and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

This case concerned an application for review of objection decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation concerning income tax assessments and penalties for the 2008 to 2011 income years. The applicant sought to challenge amended assessments that increased his taxable income and disallowed PAYG credits, leading to substantial penalty assessments. The Commissioner's objection decisions largely upheld these assessments, including the position that PAYG credits do not form part of an assessment and therefore objections relating solely to their denial were not valid.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine the nature of the burden of proof borne by taxpayers under section 14ZZK of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant had discharged this burden by proving that the assessments were excessive and, if so, what the correct assessments should have been. Related issues included whether alleged shortfalls could be attributed to fraud or evasion for out-of-time amendments, and whether the Tribunal could review the Commissioner's decision not to remit certain penalties.

The Tribunal applied established principles regarding the taxpayer's burden of proof, emphasising that it is insufficient to merely demonstrate that the Commissioner's assessment was based on a flawed method. The applicant must prove their actual taxable income for each relevant year. While inferences could be drawn from evidence, the applicant's failure to give evidence himself, despite being present at the hearing, was noted. The Tribunal also considered the Commissioner's approach to estimating taxable income without allowing for expenses, which it found troubling, but ultimately concluded that it could not set aside the assessments without the applicant proving his actual income.

The Tribunal ultimately decided to proceed with the determination of the reviews rather than remitting the matter to the Commissioner, as any such remission was considered likely to be futile given the Commissioner's opposition and would only cause further delay. The Tribunal's final orders or outcome are not detailed in the provided text, but the reasoning indicates a focus on the applicant's failure to meet his evidentiary burden.