Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Wilson
[2016] WADC 60
•5 MAY 2016
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION -v- WILSON [2016] WADC 60
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WADC 60 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2881/2014 | 20 APRIL 2016 | |
| Coram: | DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT | 5/05/16 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION JILLIAN WILSON |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Summary judgment Extension of time Evidence presented Effect of s 8AAZJ of the Taxation Assessment Act Comparison of details in running balance account with income tax statement of account |
Legislation: | Taxation Administration Act 1953 |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
JILLIAN WILSON
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Summary judgment - Extension of time - Evidence presented - Effect of s 8AAZJ of the Taxation Assessment Act - Comparison of details in running balance account with income tax statement of account
Legislation:
Taxation Administration Act 1953
Result:
Application dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr G Bei
Defendant : Ms K Pole
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Not applicable
Defendant : Austasia Legal Pty Ltd
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT: In this matter the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation applied for an extension of time within which to bring a summary judgment application and summary judgment.
2 Insofar as an extension of time to bring the application is concerned the evidence before me establishes that there was significant consultation between the parties, it being the obvious intention of the plaintiff to achieve a negotiated settlement in the matter. At the end of the day that attempt was not successful but I think it entirely appropriate for the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to attempt to negotiate settlement rather than simply proceeding with actions which have been commenced. Additionally there were some requests for leeway by the defendant in the course of that negotiation which add to my conviction that it is appropriate to extend time within which the summary judgment application maybe brought and accordingly I do so.
3 In essence the plaintiff claims against the defendant for PAYG income tax assessed, penalties for late payment, and general interest charges on the amounts from time to time due. The statement of claim discloses very little in the way of particulars and the bulk of the claim is an amount said to be a balance in a running balance account established by the commissioner such balance having certain evidentiary value. In that respect the Taxation Administration Act 1953 s 8AAZJ is relevant and that section provides:
Evidentiary certificate about RBA transaction etc.
(1) In proceedings for recovery of an RBA deficit debt, a Commissioner's certificate state any of the following matters in respect of a specified RBA is prima facie evidence of those matters:
(a) that no tax debts (other than general interest charges on the RBA deficit debt) were allocated to the RBA after the balance date shown on a specified RBA statement for the RBA;
(b) that general interest charge is payable on the RBA deficit debt, as specified in the certificate;
(c) that payments and credits were allocated to the RBA, as specified in the certificate;
(d) that a specified amount was the RBA deficit debt on the date of the certificate.
(2) In this section:
"Commissioner's certificate" means a certificate signed by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, or by a Second Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.
4 As will be seen the certificate is merely prima facie evidence of the matter and as is well known prima facie evidence can be displaced by other evidence. In this case the applicant has put before me firstly a running balance account being a summary of that account as it stood on the 11 April 2016 and additionally a further account as described as an income tax statement of accounts. Although there are and I accept there should be some differences between these accounts nonetheless I would have expected that many of the entries in each to coincide. For instance general interest charge amounts levied over the years, I would anticipate, match to some extent at least when I attempt to analyse the materials, which have been placed before me by the plaintiff. I am completely unable to reconcile the two accounts at all. When one looks at the statement of claim it would appear that it comprises firstly of the income tax liability as assessed less payments and credits secondly, the amount payable in respect of a running balance account deficit debt and finally some fines payable in respect of the failure of the defendant to lodge tax returns as required.
5 When one peruses the running balance account it appears to be entirely concerned to its PAYG income tax. There appears to be no element related to BAS provisions. The debits of general interest charge amounts do not as far as I can see match those which are recorded in the taxation statement of accounts. In my view they should. They are presumably the same amounts being levied against the same person. I find the fact that I am unable to reconcile any of these figures to be disconcerting. Try as I might I am unable to properly understand how the plaintiff has come up with the figure for which it sues other than by simply accepting the running balance account at face value. Since the plaintiff has put before me information which causes me to question the accuracy of the running balance account I take the view that the defendant should be given a chance to defend this action and challenge the accuracy of the figures relied upon by the plaintiff and for that reason I am of the view that the summary judgment application should be dismissed.
0
1