Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation
[2014] AATA 507
•25 July 2014
[2014] AATA 507
Division SMALL TAXATION CLAIMS TRIBUNAL File Number(s)
2012/1156
Re
Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers Pty Ltd
APPLICANT
And
Commissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Lazanas, Senior Member
Date 25 July 2014 Place Sydney The Tribunal decides that:
(a) the objection decision of the Respondent in relation to the assessments of net amount is set aside and substituted with a decision to allow the objection in part;
(b) the objection decision in relation to administrative penalty is set aside. The Tribunal decides that the base penalty amount of 75% increased by 20% is to be calculated against the revised tax shortfall amounts for the each of the quarterly tax periods except in the case of the quarterly tax period ended 30 September 2005 where the base penalty amount of 75% applies;
(c) the objection decision made by the Commissioner in relation to the decision to not remit the penalties is affirmed.
.......[Sgd].................................................................
Ms G Lazanas, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
TAXATION – GST –– enterprise – carrying on an enterprise – input tax credits – creditable acquisitions – attribution of input tax credits – tax invoices – unreliable business activity statements – penalty – intentional disregard of the law – penalty uplifted by 20% – objection decision re assessments of net amount set aside and substituted with a decision to allow objection in part – objection decision re penalty set aside as to calculation of penalty – decision not to remit penalty affirmed
LEGISLATION
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth), ss 7-1, 9-5, 9-20,11-5, 11-15, 11-20, 11-25, 29-5, 29-10, 29-70, 29-80, 195-1
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ss 14ZR, 14ZZK; Sch 1 ss 284-75, 284-80, 284-90, 284-220, 298-20, 382-5
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999, regs 29-70.01, 29-80.01CASES
Commissioner of Taxation v Swansea Services Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 402
Re Davsa Forty-Ninth Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Krongold Ford Business Unit Trust and Commissioner of Taxation [2014] AATA 337
Re Dotrac Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2014] AATA 336
Ferguson v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 37 FLR 310
Martin v Federal Commissioner (1953) 90 CLR 470
Professional Admin Service Centres Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCA 1123
Toyama Pty Ltd v Landmark Building Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 83REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms G Lazanas, Senior Member
25 July 2014
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is the private company of Mr Giuseppe Caporale. Mr Caporale is a qualified structural engineer. The Company contends that it is carrying on an enterprise of providing structural engineering services and that it is entitled, for GST purposes, to claim input tax credits (ITCs) in relation to various acquisitions.
The Commissioner of Taxation audited the Company and issued a notice of assessments of net amount increasing its GST liability on the basis that the Company had not reported all of its taxable supplies in its Business Activity Statements (BASs) for the quarterly tax periods 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2008 (the Relevant Period). The Commissioner also determined that the Company had claimed ITCs in the Relevant Period in circumstances where it was not entitled to do so. The Company did not produce evidence to validate its claims for ITCs, notwithstanding repeated requests from the Commissioner.
The Company objected to the assessments. Subsequent to the lodgement of the Company’s objection but before the Commissioner made his objection decision, the Company produced to the Commissioner numerous documents, including tax invoices, in order to substantiate the ITCs claimed. However, the Commissioner failed to take these documents into account when making his objection decision. No explanation has been provided for the Commissioner’s failure to take the documents into account other than human error.
In his objection decision, the Commissioner decided that the Company was not carrying on an enterprise during the Relevant Period and, accordingly, that the Company did not make any taxable supplies or creditable acquisitions. The Commissioner also made a decision to cancel the Company’s GST registration with effect from 31 December 2008, which is a separate reviewable GST decision.
The question for the Tribunal is whether the Commissioner’s objection decision is correct.
I have decided that the Company was carrying on an enterprise for part of the Relevant Period only, namely, the period up to 30 June 2007 and that it made taxable supplies in that period. I have also concluded that the Company is entitled to claim some of the ITCs that it reported in respect of acquisitions that it made in the quarterly tax periods 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007. There are various reasons, as set out below, for rejecting most of the Company’s claims for ITCs. I have also separately set out in a table annexed to these reasons marked as Annexure A whether the ITCs claimed have been allowed or not and the reason by reference to various categories which are discussed below.
In relation to the imposition of administrative penalties, the Commissioner determined that the behaviour of the Company constituted intentional disregard of the taxation laws and that a penalty of 75%, increased by 20% because of aggravating factors, was properly imposed under the taxation administration laws. Further, the Commissioner decided that there were no circumstances warranting remission of penalties. For the reasons set out below, I agree with the Commissioner’s decisions on the penalties aspects.
THE ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The essential issue is whether the Company is entitled to the ITCs that it claimed. That depends on whether it made “creditable acquisitions” for the purposes of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act1999 (GST Act). That, in turn, depends on whether the Company was “carrying on” an “enterprise” for the purposes of the GST Act. There are many subsidiary issues, including with respect to whether the Company met the “creditable purpose” test in claiming the ITCs, how the “attribution rules” apply to its ITC claims and the validity of the tax invoices.
The issue of whether an entity is “carrying on” an “enterprise” has direct implications for whether an entity is entitled to be registered for GST. However, the issue of whether the Company’s GST registration was properly cancelled by the Commissioner is not presently the subject of review by the Tribunal.
There are also issues with respect to penalties that are before the Tribunal for review, including both the imposition and the remission aspects arising under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA).
THE LEGISLATION
It is necessary to set out some “central provisions” of the GST Act before addressing the legislative provisions that are specifically raised by the issues in this case. They are set out below but, for simplicity, I have omitted the notes and examples. Provisions that have since been amended are set out in their form at the relevant time.
7-1 GST and input tax credits
(1) GST is payable on *taxable supplies and *taxable importations.
(2) Entitlements to input tax credits arise on *creditable acquisitions and *creditable importations.
As will be noted, s 7-1 refers to “taxable supplies” and “creditable acquisitions”, which are defined in Divisions 9 and 11 of the GST Act, as follows.
9-5 Taxable supplies
You make a taxable supply if:
(a) you make the supply for *consideration; and
(b) the supply is made in the course or furtherance of an *enterprise that you *carry on; and
(c) the supply is *connected with Australia; and
(d) you are *registered, or *required to be registered.
However, the supply is not a *taxable supply to the extent that it is *GST‑free or *input taxed.
11-5 What is a creditable acquisition?
You make a creditable acquisition if:
(a) you acquire anything solely or partly for a *creditable purpose; and
(b) the supply of the thing to you is a *taxable supply; and
(c) you provide, or are liable to provide, *consideration for the supply; and
(d) you are *registered, or *required to be registered.
Section 9-20 defines the term “enterprise”. The relevant paragraphs state:
9-20 Enterprises
(1) An enterprise is an activity, or series of activities, done:
(a) in the form of a *business; or
(b) in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade: or ...
The word “business” is defined in s 195-1 as including “…any profession, trade, employment, vocation or calling, but does not include an occupation as an employee.”
Further, “carrying on” an enterprise is defined in s 195-1 (the Dictionary in the GST Act) to include “doing anything in the course of the commencement or termination of the enterprise.”
The term “creditable purpose” is defined (to the extent presently relevant) in s 11-15 as follows:
11-15 Meaning of creditable purpose
(1) You acquire a thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that you acquire it in *carrying on your *enterprise.
(2) However, you do not acquire the thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that:
(a) ...; or
(b) the acquisition is of a private or domestic nature.
Under s 11-20, the entity that is entitled to ITCs is the entity that makes the creditable acquisition and, pursuant to s 11-25, the amount of the ITC for a creditable acquisition is an amount equal to the GST payable on the supply of the thing acquired.
The GST attribution rules in the GST Act are also relevant to the issues raised. Broadly, the attribution rules set out in Division 29 of the GST Act refer to the tax periods to which an entity attributes the GST payable on its taxable supplies and the ITCs on its creditable acquisitions.
Section 29-5(1) states as follows with respect to attributing the GST on taxable supplies for an entity that accounts on a non-cash basis:
29-5 Attributing the GST on your taxable supplies
(1) The GST payable by you on a *taxable supply is attributable to:
(a) the tax period in which any of the *consideration is received for the supply; or
(b) if, before any of the consideration is received, an *invoice is issued relating to the supply—the tax period in which the invoice is issued.
Section 29-10(1) relevantly provides as follows in relation to attributing the ITCs for creditable acquisitions for an entity that accounts on a non-cash basis:
29-10 Attributing the input tax credits for your creditable acquisitions
(1) The input tax credit to which you are entitled for a *creditable acquisition is attributable to:
(a) the tax period in which you provide any of the *consideration for the acquisition; or
(b) if, before you provide any of the consideration, an *invoice is issued relating to the acquisition—the tax period in which the invoice is issued.
There are additional rules regarding the attribution of ITCs in s 29-10(3) and (4), as follows, which are important:
(3) If you do not hold a *tax invoice for a *creditable acquisition when you give to the Commissioner a *GST return for the tax period to which the input tax credit (or any part of the input tax credit) on the acquisition would otherwise be attributable:
(a) the input tax credit (including any part of the input tax credit) is not attributable to that tax period; and
(b) the input tax credit (or part) is attributable to the first tax period for which you give to the Commissioner a GST return at a time when you hold that tax invoice.
However, this subsection does not apply in circumstances of a kind determined in writing by the Commissioner to be circumstances in which the requirement for a tax invoice does not apply.
(4) If the *GST return for the tax period referred to in paragraph (3)(b) states a *net amount that does not take into account an input tax credit attributable to that tax period:
(a) the input tax credit is not attributable to that tax period; and
(b) the input tax credit is attributable to the first tax period for which you give the Commissioner a GST return that does take it into account.
With respect to the nature of tax invoices, the following provisions of the GST Act and the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations1999, in their form prior to legislative amendments in 2010, are important to the Company’s ITC claims. Relevantly, s 29-70(1) stated that a tax invoice for a taxable supply:
(a)must be issued by the supplier;
(b)must set out the ABN of the entity that issues it;
(c)must set out the price for the supply;
(d)must contain such other information as the regulations specify; and
(e)must be in the approved form.
Regulation 29-70.01 stated the information that was required to be contained in tax invoices. Regulation 29-70.01(2) relevantly provided that “if the total amount, including GST, payable for the supply or supplies to which the tax invoice relates is $1,000 or more, the tax invoice must contain the following information:
(a)the words ‘tax invoice’ stated prominently;
(b)the date of issue of the tax invoice;
(c)the name of the supplier;
(d)the name of the recipient;
(e)the address or the ABN of the recipient;
(f)a brief description of each thing supplied;
(g)for each description, the quantity of the goods or the extent of the services supplied.
Regulation 29-70.01(3) contained similar but less stringent requirements where the total amount was less than $1,000, for example, the name of the recipient and the address or the ABN of the recipient did not have to be shown on the tax invoice. In addition, regulation 29-70.01(4) stated that if the tax invoice was for one or more taxable supplies only, and the amount of GST payable on the supply or supplies was exactly 1/11th of the total price for the supply or supplies, the tax invoice must contain: (a) a statement to the effect that the total amount payable includes GST for the supply or supplies; or (b) the total amount of GST payable.
Furthermore, s 29-80 of the GST Act and regulation 29-80.01 provided that there was no obligation to issue or to hold a tax invoice if the value of the supply (excluding GST) did not exceed $50 (the amount changed to $75 from 1 July 2010).
Regardless of the threshold, s 382-5 of Schedule 1 to the TAA requires the taxpayer, in relation to ITCs claimed in a BAS, “to keep records that record and explain all transactions and other acts that you engage in that are relevant to the acquisition” for at least 5 years.
Other special rules in the GST Act are set out below. In addition, the administrative penalty provisions in the TAA are also set out later in these reasons.
It is also important to note at the outset that the TAA provides that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving in these proceedings that, first, each of the assessments of net amount for the quarterly tax periods and the assessments of administrative penalty, is excessive (s 14ZZK(b)(i) of the TAA). Secondly, the taxpayer has the onus of proving that the decision not to remit the penalty should not have been made, or should have been made differently (s 14ZZK(b)(ii) of the TAA).
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following findings of fact are based upon the respective Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions lodged by the Company and the Commissioner, various documents tendered in evidence and the evidence of Mr Giuseppe Caporale. Mr Caporale was the only person who gave evidence at the hearing. He was represented by his sister, Ms Rosa Caporale, who is also an authorised representative of the Company for its taxation affairs.
The Company and its BASs
Mr Caporale was at all relevant times the sole director and shareholder of the Company, which was acquired by him as a shelf company in April 2001. The Company has never had any employees.
The Company registered for GST on or about 26 April 2001. The Company accounted for GST on a non-cash basis and submitted its BASs (or GST returns) on a quarterly basis.
The Company lodged BASs disclosing the following information with respect to the Relevant Period:
Quarterly BAS Period Total
SalesGST Payable
Creditable
AcquisitionsInput Tax
CreditsPayment/
(Refund)30 September 2005 840 76 10,824 984 (908) 31 December 2005 0 0 22,720 2,065 (2,065) 31 March 2006 0 0 3,215 292 (292) 30 June 2006 0 0 1,707 155 (155) 30 September 2006 330 30 3,139 285 (255) 31 December 2006 0 0 125 11 (11) 31 March 2007 0 0 2,007 182 (182) 30 June 2007 110 10 0 0 (10) 30 September 2007 0 0 0 0 0 31 December 2007 0 0 0 0 0 31 March 2008 0 0 1,897 172 (172) 30 June 2008 0 0 997 90 (90) 30 September 2008 0 0 680 61 (61) 31 December 2008 0 0 340 30 (30) Total 1,280 116 47,597 4,327
The Company’s BASs were prepared by Ms Rosa Caporale based on information that Mr Giuseppe Caporale provided to her.
The Assessments, the Objection and the Objection Decision
The Commissioner commenced an audit of the Company in or about June 2008.
On 5 March 2009, the Commissioner issued a notice of assessments of net amount for the quarterly tax periods from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2008. In broad terms, the Commissioner determined that the Company had made taxable supplies and not reported them in the BASs lodged; that is, it had understated its taxable supplies and consequently, the GST payable. The Commissioner also determined that because the Company failed to provide the requested tax invoices to prove the ITCs that had been claimed, the Company did not hold valid tax invoices and was, therefore, not entitled to claim any of the ITCs; that is, it had overstated all its creditable acquisitions and, consequently, the ITCs claimed. The table below shows details of the Commissioner’s notice of assessments of net amount for the quarterly tax periods for the Relevant Period.
Column A Column B Column C Column D Tax period Original net amount Assessed net amount Difference
(Col C – Col B)1/07/2005 to 30/09/2005 -984[1] 0 984 1/10/2005 to 31/12/2005 -2065 0 2065 1/01/2006 to 31/03/2006 -292 113 405 1/04/2006 to 30/06/2006 -155 760 915 1/07/2006 to 30/09/2006 -255 166 421 1/10/2006 to 31/12/2006 -11 0 11 1/01/2007 to 31/03/2007 -182 0 182 1/04/2007 to 30/06/2007 10 20 10 1/07/2007 to 30/09/2007 0 36 36 1/10/2007 to 31/12/2007 0 90 90 1/01/2008 to 31/03/2008 -172 0 172 1/04/2008 to 30/06/2008 -90 53 143 1/07/2008 to 30/09/2008 -61 0 61 1/10/2008 to 31/12/2008 -30 0 30 Totals -4287 1238 5525 The total amount applied to your running balance account is: $5525 [1] Note that the Company’s BAS, as lodged, states that the net amount was (908) - see T5- 47.
On 5 March 2009, the Commissioner also issued a notice of assessments and liability to pay penalties for the quarterly tax periods from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2008 at an effective rate of 90% of the tax shortfall (that is, base penalty amount of 75% increased by 20%). The assessment of the total penalty amount payable was $4,806.
On the following day, 6 March 2009, the Company lodged a notice of objection. Besides objecting to the assessments of the GST net amount and the penalty and interest charges, the Company also apparently objected to its “deregistration” and asked that the Commissioner immediately reinstate it for GST.
On 30 January 2012, the Commissioner issued a notice of decision on the objection. The Commissioner allowed the objection in part, with respect to the assessments of the GST net amount, but disallowed the objection with respect to the administrative penalty. In particular, with respect to the objection to the assessments of the GST net amount, the Commissioner accepted that certain unexplained bank deposits that were previously assessed by him as being for taxable supplies were not for taxable supplies. This is because the Commissioner determined that the Company was not carrying on an enterprise during the Relevant Period and, therefore, the Company did not make any taxable supplies nor was it entitled to claim any ITCs.
Accordingly, the Commissioner issued a further notice of assessments of net amount on
7 February 2012 in which he reduced some of the Company’s GST liability on sales and additionally reduced all of the ITCs claimed to nil. This involved a different approach to that taken by the Commissioner when he originally issued the notice of assessments issued on 5 March 2009. Initially, the Commissioner had maintained the Company was carrying on an enterprise and that there were unreported sales and over claimed ITCs.
The Commissioner also decided to cancel the Company’s GST registration with an effective date of 31 December 2008. I note that the cancellation of the Company’s GST registration occurred after the Company had objected to the decision to cancel its GST registration.[2]
[2] T16 -222, T2-30 and T22-251
The matter was conducted by the parties on the basis that the cancellation of the Company’s GST registration was a relevant issue before the Tribunal.[3] However, while the issue of GST registration involves similar considerations to those relevant to determining whether an entity is carrying on an enterprise, it is a separate reviewable GST decision. In circumstances where the Commissioner had made no objection decision in relation to the cancellation of the Company’s GST registration (as the Commissioner’s decision to cancel the Company’s GST registration occurred after the objection was lodged by the Company), it cannot presently be the subject of review by the Tribunal.
[3] Transcript P-8 to P-10
On 27 March 2012, the Company lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of the Commissioner’s objection decision in relation to the notice of assessments of net amount and the assessment of administrative penalty. For completeness, I note that the Company did not identify any objection decision by the Commissioner regarding the cancellation of its GST registration.
The Spread Sheet and the Tax Invoices
The Commissioner had contacted the Company and its representative, Ms Rosa Caporale, on numerous occasions asking for documents and information about the Company’s activities prior to the issue of the notice of assessments on 5 March 2009. These included requests made on 23 June 2008, 14 July 2008, 11 August 2008, 28 August 2008,
5 September 2008 and 14 November 2008.[4] By all accounts, the Company did not co-operate and did not respond in any meaningful way to any of these requests.
[4] T1-17, T19-242
However, subsequent to the lodgement by the Company of its objection on 6 March 2009, the Company faxed to the Commissioner on 28 March 2009 a spread sheet detailing the ITCs that it had claimed (or purported to have claimed).[5] I refer to this spread sheet as the “2009 spread sheet” in these reasons. That spread sheet listed the Company’s purchases by reference to the quarterly tax periods for the Relevant Period. The 2009 spread sheet also particularised the dates of the acquisitions, the names of the suppliers, the amounts paid to the suppliers and the amounts of the ITCs. Significantly, however, many of the entries appeared to be in no particular order.
[5] T18-230-241
Another version of the spread sheet was sent by the Company to the Tribunal and to the Commissioner on 19 June 2012. A further version was sent on 6 August 2012. The latter version is referred to as the “2012 spread sheet” in these reasons.[6] The 2012 spread sheet was virtually identical to the 2009 spread sheet, except that additional purchases and corresponding ITC claims were included in it by the Company for a few of the quarterly tax periods under review. For example, in respect of the quarterly tax period ended September 2005, the 2009 spread sheet showed ITCs of $991,[7] whereas the 2012 spread sheet listed ITCs in the amount of $1,197. Another difference was that the end of the 2012 spread sheet listed “supplementary invoices” in respect of the Relevant Period. Ms Rosa Caporale explained at the hearing that the Company had discovered more tax invoices and consequently wished to claim ITCs for these acquisitions as well.
[6] Exhibit A2
[7] T18-231
A significant problem with the Company’s different iterations of the spread sheet was that the total amounts of the ITCs claimed in the BASs lodged in the Relevant Period did not match those shown in the different versions of the spread sheets. In some cases, they were not even close. Specifically, the ITCs listed in both of the spread sheets were greater than those claimed in most of the BASs lodged by the Company. For example, the ITCs claimed in the BAS lodged by the Company for the quarter ended March 2006 was the amount of $292[8] but the 2009 spread sheet showed ITCs totalling $667 for that quarter,[9] while the 2012 spread sheet showed ITCs in the sum of $869. In the case of some quarterly tax periods, for example, the quarterly tax period ended 30 June 2007, the Company did not claim any ITCs in the BAS that it had lodged with the Commissioner[10] but the 2009 spread sheet showed ITCs of $228.[11]
[8] T5-50 see label 1B
[9] T18-233
[10] T5-60 see label 1B
[11] T18-236
A problem with the Company’s approach was that it sought to demonstrate that the assessment of GST net amounts for the tax periods was excessive by showing that it had made acquisitions and was entitled to claim ITCs greater than those actually claimed in the BASs lodged. However, s 29-10(4) of the GST Act provides that the ITCs (assuming that they are otherwise for creditable acquisitions) are only attributable to the tax period when they are taken into account by a taxpayer in its BAS and no other tax period. Therefore, the Company could not retrospectively claim the ITCs in past tax periods even if it discovered more tax invoices. In other words, it would be limited to the lesser amounts of ITCs shown in its BASs.
But the Company’s single, biggest problem was the fact that the Company could not vouch for the acquisitions in respect of which the ITCs had been originally claimed by it in its BASs for the quarterly tax periods. That is to say, because additional invoices were found and added into the spread sheet (and different versions of the spread sheet were in evidence), it was not possible to easily add up combinations of invoices that matched the ITCs claimed in the BASs lodged for the Relevant Period, at least not for all of the quarterly tax periods in question. The ITCs claimed in the BASs could not be reconciled without unacceptable guesswork by the Tribunal.
The Company had kept no contemporaneous records or work papers supporting the ITCs originally claimed in its BASs. Ms Caporale explained that they “had not thought to actually separate them [the invoices] at the time”.[12] Not only had the Company not separated the invoices for each BAS, it was evident that the Company had not even kept any contemporaneous list of invoices or spread sheets in respect of which ITCs were claimed in each BAS. In other words, the BASs were rendered unreliable as the Company could not show how it had originally compiled its ITC claims.
[12] Transcript P-139
The first time that a spread sheet was produced by the Company to support the ITCs claimed in the BASs was in late March 2009, after the Company lodged its objection to the Commissioner’s assessments. It also transpired that the Company proceeded to revise the spread sheet and to add further invoices and corresponding claims for ITCs for these proceedings, lending credence to the Commissioner’s suspicion that the Company was backfilling its ITC claims with invoices that were not for acquisitions made by the Company.
Finally, on or about 11 January 2010, almost a year after it had lodged its objection, the Company sent by registered post to the Commissioner copies of the tax invoices and other documents to support its ITC claims in the BASs for the Relevant Period. These comprised two folders of documents. Apparently, the taxation officer who received these documents (and the 2009 spread sheet which was with the folders) did not hand them over to the taxation officer who was considering the Company’s objection. It was not clear how this happened but what is clear is that the Commissioner did not take these documents into account in making his objection decision on 30 January 2012.
When the Commissioner later reviewed the copies of the tax invoices and other documents provided by the Company in or about July 2012 (after the commencement of these proceedings), the Commissioner pointed out to the Company that he was concerned that the ITCs claimed by the Company appeared to have been attributed by it to different quarterly tax periods on an arbitrary basis. That is to say, the ITCs which ordinarily would have been claimed by a taxpayer in BASs for earlier tax periods consistent with the dates of the invoices had been claimed by the Company in much later tax periods. For example, there were numerous invoices dated 2001 and 2002 that the Company claimed ITCs for, in its BAS lodged for the quarter ended 31 September 2005. The Commissioner referred to these invoices as having been “claimed in the incorrect tax period”. The Commissioner rightly accepted, however, that at the relevant time, no time limits applied in the GST Act to the claiming of these ITCs (if they were otherwise valid).
The Commissioner put the Company on notice during the Tribunal directions hearings that he could not be confident that the ITCs claimed had not been previously claimed by the Company (or for that matter, by other Caporale entities) in earlier tax periods, including for tax periods not under review by the Commissioner. He submitted that if, contrary to his view, the Tribunal held that the Company was carrying on an enterprise, the Company still had to prove that the ITCs were valid, for example, by showing that the ITCs had not otherwise been claimed in an earlier tax period. As noted above, in most instances, the amounts claimed as ITCs in the respective BASs did not tally with the sum of the ITCs claimed by the Company according to its 2009 and 2012 spread sheets.
Put simply, the Commissioner suspected that the Company was claiming these ITCs in more than one tax period and that possibly other related Caporale entities had also claimed ITCs on these acquisitions. The Commissioner rejected the vast majority of the Company’s ITCs on this basis. I discuss this category of invoices, which I refer to as involving “possible duplication”, below.
At the hearing, the Commissioner also submitted that there were many other deficiencies with respect to the tax invoices in respect of which the Company had claimed ITCs, including that many invoices were not made out to the Company and some documents were not tax invoices because they did not conform to the requirements or because the suppliers had not charged any GST or the Company had claimed ITCs in excess of what was charged by the suppliers. Also, the Commissioner claimed that many of the invoices were not for “creditable acquisitions” made by the Company or, if they were acquired by the Company, they were not for a creditable purpose because the acquisitions were of a private nature, namely, Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s private expenditure. I also discuss these categories of invoices below.
Before doing so, it is helpful to set out Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s story based on his evidence before the Tribunal.
THE EVIDENCE OF MR GIUSEPPE CAPORALE
Mr Caporale stated that he is a chartered structural engineer and that he holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree, having graduated from the University of Sydney in 1996. He stated that he formed the Company with the view of establishing a business related to structural engineering and consultancy work, including structural engineering design, site inspections, site management, project management and consultancy advice. He said that the Company did consultancy work for the family business, which he also referred to as the Caporale Projects, as well as for third parties, which he explained to be a reference to unrelated private individuals as well as other engineering and architectural consultancy firms. He also stated that his intention was that the Company would make a profit.[13]
[13] Transcript P-29
Mr Giuseppe Caporale described the “family business” and the “Caporale Projects” as comprising the following developments undertaken (or proposed to be undertaken) by the Caporale family:
(a)twin tower high rise residential/commercial development at Hurstville
(b)aged care facility at Gymea Bay
(c)conversion of commercial to residential at Hurstville
(d)educational facility at Helensburgh
(e)educational facility at Dapto
(f)health care facility at Helensburgh
Besides Giuseppe Caporale, the Caporale family includes his siblings, Rosa Caporale and Tommaso Caporale (both of them being qualified architects) and their parents, Giacomo and Domenica Caporale, who previously carried on a motor mechanic business as a partnership. The Caporale family live together in a house which is also the premises from where Mr Giuseppe Caporale says they work. He stated that “it has ended up being an office not a home” because they are all “working there between five and seven days a week all day long”.[14] In other words, there were no dedicated business premises for the Company or any of the Caporale entities.
[14] Transcript P-107
It emerged that a lot of the “work” in which the Caporale family is involved concerns taxation disputes with the Commissioner. Ms Caporale referred the Tribunal to a timeline of the various legal proceedings and directions to show that the Company and Ms Rosa Caporale, its authorised representative, were under constant pressure to produce documents for the Commissioner or for Tribunal or court hearings. Clearly, the Commissioner was also familiar with the taxation affairs of the Caporale entities. In relation to the Company, the Commissioner’s attitude was that “we cannot trust anything without seeing the source documents from this taxpayer… The affairs are just a complete mess the way this has been done.”[15]
[15] Transcript P- 156
Mr Giuseppe Caporale stated that the only companies left in the Caporale group of entities are the applicant and Sappia Investments Pty Ltd as all other companies have been wound up.[16] The information about the companies having been wound up emerged in the course of Ms Caporale advancing the proposition that “there is no possibility that those companies [the companies that had been wound up] could even claim these invoices anymore” and “so essentially the only person who’s left to be able to claim these is Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers”. In other words, as Ms Caporale explained, she was “just trying to make sure that there’s no question that they [the ITCs] may have been claimed somewhere else”.[17] But instead of allaying concerns about possible duplication, these statements only served to highlight that the Caporale entities, including the Company, did not have a clear understanding that under s 11-20 of the GST Act, the only entity that is entitled to claim ITCs is the entity that makes the creditable acquisition (subject to meeting the other requirements).
[16] Transcript P-107-108
[17] Transcript P-107
Mr Giuseppe Caporale further stated that he, by which I understood him to mean the Company, had “invoiced the private individuals as well as other engineering and architectural consultancy firms” but that he has “not as yet invoiced for any works... undertaken on behalf of the Caporale Projects”. In fact, the entirety of the invoices issued by the Company in respect of the Relevant Period, and before the Tribunal, were as follows:
(a)Invoice to Mr Prisuda dated 29 July 2005 for structural engineering drawings for a garage at Gymea Bay in the amount of $840 including GST of $76.36;
(b)Invoice to Ms Graham dated 10 March 2006 for structural engineering plans for a new house at Bellevue Hill in the amount of $6,600 including GST of $600;
(c)Invoice to Mr D’Ettorre, the architect for Ms Graham dated 10 March 2006 for variations to plans in the amount of $1,650 including GST of $150;
(d)Invoice to Mr Vasilareas dated 13 July 2006 for a site inspection in relation to works at a property in Mascot in the amount of $110 including GST of $10;
(e)Invoice to Mr Prisuda dated 16 August 2006 regarding building questions in relation to the garage at Gymea Bay in the amount of $110 including GST of $10;
(f)Invoice to Mr Vasilareas dated 16 August 2006 for a site inspection in relation to works at a property in Mascot in the amount of $110 including GST of $10;
(g)Invoice to Mr Vasilareas dated 21 February 2007 for a site inspection in relation to works at a property in Mascot in the amount of $110 including GST of $10; and
(h)Invoice to Mr Vasilareas dated 22 May 2007 for a site inspection in relation to works at a property in Mascot in the amount of $110 including GST of $10.
I accept that the abovementioned invoices reflect work that was undertaken by the Company during part of the Relevant Period. The invoices were supported by signed statements and other correspondence from the recipients of the services (Mr Prisuda, Mr D’Ettore and Mr Vasilareas)[18] which independently corroborated that the services had been provided by the Company.
[18] Exhibit A3
It is noted that the abovementioned invoices in paragraphs [62](a) to (h) total $9,640 including GST of $876.36. As is evident from the table at paragraph [32] above showing the amounts that the Company reported in its BASs, the Company only disclosed that it had total sales of $1,280 (including GST of $116) in the Relevant Period. That is to say, the Company omitted to report $8,360 in sales, and an amount of $760 GST was accordingly understated in the Company’s quarterly tax periods (assuming that the Company is carrying on an enterprise).
The following inconclusive exchange between counsel for the Commissioner and Mr Giuseppe Caporale suggested that the Company may have invoiced other third parties as well:
MR O’BRIEN: So you say that's the complete evidence in regard to any third party work you did outside of Caporale Designs; is that right?
MR G CAPORALE: ---That I've got here today.
MR O’BRIEN: No, that's the complete evidence of
MR G CAPORALE:- – - ?---That's what I've got – - –
- – - the work you've done for third parties?--- – - – here today.
MR O’BRIEN: Well, today is the day, Mr Caporale, today is the day. You knew that you had
MR G CAPORALE:- – - – ?---This is an example.
MR O’BRIEN:- – - to prove that you were carrying on business?
MR G CAPORALE:---Well, what am I supposed to do? Bring our truck full of paperwork? What I did today – - –
MR O’BRIEN: Well, this is the day?---
MR G CAPORALE:- – - examples to show the AAT and yourself – - –
MR O’BRIEN: But the BAS statements show – reflect the few jobs you did?
MR G CAPORALE: ---But this is example – - –
MR O’BRIEN: The BAS statements reflect it?
MR G CAPORALE:---This is examples of the jobs I've done.[19]
[19] Transcript P-50
I also separately asked Mr Giuseppe Caporale about the work that the Company had performed for third parties and he stated that, in respect of the Relevant Period, the abovementioned persons were the only third parties that he had dealt with.[20] I was not persuaded that this was an accurate answer in circumstances where Mr Giuseppe Caporale had been very reluctant to provide a straightforward answer under cross-examination by counsel for the Commissioner.
[20] Transcript P-51
In relation to work purportedly done by the Company for the Caporale family, there is no evidence that the Company undertook any work during the Relevant Period. Certainly, it did not issue any invoices, nor did it get paid for any work by any member of the Caporale family or any entity in the Caporale group of companies, including those that were involved with the proposed educational facility at Helensburgh or Dapto and that have been subsequently wound up. There was no evidence of any contracts for such work or payment, nor any structural engineering plans that had been prepared by the Company, nor any statements adduced by any independent person. There was no scope of works or project plans or timetables with the Company’s name included nor any correspondence with anyone about the involvement of the Company in any Caporale Project. There was also no information included amongst the folders of documents and invoices tendered as evidence that showed any direct interaction between the Company and any Caporale Project that one might expect to see of an engineering company.
Notwithstanding this, Mr Giuseppe Caporale stated in his oral evidence that work undertaken for the Caporale Projects would be charged in accordance with the Rawlinsons construction book. He said that structural engineers would normally charge 10 per cent of the value of construction works. Relevantly, in the course of his re-examination at the hearing, he explained that he proposed that the Company will charge and expects to receive $70 million in fees, being 10 per cent of the estimated $700 million construction cost of the proposed development of an educational facility at Dapto (referred to in paragraph [58](e) above).[21] He said that he didn’t need to keep any timesheets of hours worked because the Company’s method of charging for Caporale Projects was based on a percentage of construction costs and a trust relationship.
[21] Transcript P-83
However, it was not at all clear which family member or Caporale company (or for that matter, any other unrelated entity) was going to pay $70 million (or any other amount) in fees to the Company, as well as when any such amount was going to be paid and, more importantly, what the payment was for. When asked what the Company was doing for the educational facility at Dapto, Mr Giuseppe Caporale provided the following description:
The educational facility is in planning stage now, which means that we are working on a strata plan. And at this stage, in order to finalise the stage plan, we need to know the depths of beams that are required and also the depths of slabs that are required, and also to initiate checks that what is included in the strata plan will work during the construction period.[22]
[22] Transcript P-91
Mr Caporale also provided the following details in relation to the work purportedly done in the past by the Company for the Hurstville and Gymea Bay projects:
MR G CAPORALE:: Okay. You asked me about what work did I do on the Hurstville high rise tower project – - –
MS CAPORALE: Yes?---
MR G CAPORALE:- – - in this period of 2005 to 2008. There was – in the actual project, there was ground-floor commercial space that were converted into residential home units, and in order for that to take place, we had to install new structural elements as steel columns and also supporting Hebel block wall. We also had to come up with suitable details for the council in order that this change from commercial space to residential space could be created. So that meant that the rebuilding of the existing structure had to comply with certain fire ratings. So that was for the Hurstville project.
MS CAPORALE: Okay. And just quickly – and the Gymea Bay project – the aged care?
MR G CAPORALE:---The aged care project – - –
...
MR G CAPORALE: That was a complete demolition of an existing service station. It was completely demolished, and I was engaged as the structural engineer to come up with a full design of the project, which meant detailing the designs of slabs – concrete slabs, concrete columns, retaining walls and all other structural aspects of the project.[23]
[23] Transcript P-90
The reality is, as confirmed by Mr Giuseppe Caporale in oral evidence, that the Company has never charged for any services for any Caporale Projects including in respect of the residential and commercial development at Hurstville, nor the aged care facility at Gymea Bay which had completed some years beforehand.[24] It also has not charged for the retirement village development at Botany Bay.[25] The explanation offered by Mr Giuseppe Caporale that it would all be the subject of reconciliation in the future had no foundation, particularly in circumstances where virtually all Caporale companies had been wound up and the reference to the future was uncertain. Similarly, the prospect of the Company charging approximately $70 million in relation to the proposed educational facility at Dapto, in circumstances where it was not specified who will pay this fee to the Company was not credible. It was also glaringly inconsistent with other evidence filed by the Company with the Tribunal on 18 July 2013 in which it was stated that the Company anticipated fees of 1% (not 10%) of the value of the educational facility at Dapto and estimated the fees at $7 million, compared to the $70 million in fees that Mr Giuseppe Caporale said in oral evidence that the Company would earn.[26] Moreover, the descriptions of the services allegedly provided by the Company in relation to the various Caporale Projects were vague in that they lacked detail. Finally, there were no supporting documents of any kind showing the engagement of the Company for the provision of structural engineering services.
[24] Transcript P-105-107
[25] Transcript P-78
[26] Exhibit A3, page 6
Accordingly, I do not accept any of Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s evidence in relation to work that was supposedly being done by the Company for the Caporale Projects in the Relevant Period. Nor do I accept that the Company did work and that “reconciliations of payments will happen in the future” with the Caporale entities. The Company failed to prove that it did any work for the Caporale Projects. Specifically, in the present case, the absence of any evidence of any scope of works or plans showing the involvement of the Company suggest that services have not been provided by it to the Caporale entities. The fact that the Company has not yet charged for any such work, and that there are major inconsistencies in the evidence as to the proposed fees, combined with the unlikelihood that the Company will ever make any money from the Caporale Projects reinforce the conclusion that the Company has not done any work for the Caporale entities.
Moreover, the income tax returns that were lodged by a tax agent for the Company disclosed nil income and expenses for the years ended 30 June 2006, 2007 and 2008 and as at the date of the hearing, income tax returns had not yet been lodged for the later years. Furthermore, the income tax returns lodged contradicted the BASs lodged which showed some taxable supplies and many creditable acquisitions. There is a legitimate question as to which documents, if any, are accurate. It is no answer to say, as Ms Rosa Caporale suggested, and Mr Giuseppe Caporale agreed in re-examination, that the income tax returns were not correct but that there is no prejudice to the Commissioner, because the Company made losses in any event and the Company would never have paid any income tax. The Company and its representatives must have represented to the Company’s tax agent, who prepared the income tax returns, that there was nil activity. This factor and other inconsistencies in the evidence lead me to the finding that Mr Giuseppe Caporale tailored his evidence to suit the circumstances and it was, therefore, unreliable. It is for this reason that I do not accept any of Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s evidence, other than the evidence supported by other independent documents.
There were very few independent documents (besides the folders of invoices with which I deal separately below), for me to review. The Company had an ANZ Bank account and overdraft facility of $20,000, but besides some small amounts that were deposited, and some payments made by cheques, the details of which were not before the Tribunal, the only recurrent entries were bank charges and the ITC refunds from the Commissioner.[27] The Company also had a credit card which Mr Giuseppe Caporale used to pay expenses. As discussed below, many expenses, including those paid for using the Company’s credit card and the expenses paid by Mr Giuseppe Caporale and his brother using various other personal credit cards were of a private or domestic nature. It was also unclear whether the Company had ever reimbursed Mr Giuseppe Caporale or Mr Tommaso Caporale for these payments, which were claimed to have been made for the Company.
[27] See T12 and A1
In relation to other business documents that one would expect to see a Company keep with some systematic order, there was nothing which Mr Giuseppe Caporale could point to. For instance, the Company did not prepare any financial statements. Also, whatever documents the Company did keep were claimed to have been stored in one or more cabinets, but in no particular order. Mr Giuseppe Caporale provided the following explanation at the hearing in relation to the storage and filing of documents and the reasons for the Company’s delay in claiming ITCs:
SENIOR MEMBER: Could you explain why invoices from 2002 are referenced in BASs for 2005 – July 2005? Why are those invoices now attaching to input tax credit claims that are taken up in July 2005?
MR CAPORALE:---What would happen is that – we were probably just putting them in one area as the stuff was coming in – - –
SENIOR MEMBER: What area is that?
MR CAPORALE:---Like, for example, Giuseppe Caporal Structural Engineers area is a cabinet that we keep – one cabinet or maybe two cabinets – so we know everything in that cabinet has got to with Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers. Now, we’ve got so much paperwork that’s coming in that what happens is, as it comes in, we just try our best to put it in the same cabinet, so as least we know what cabinet it is. And then we store it there until a time that it is needed. That being said, we might receive a letter from the ATO saying, “We want such and such and such of Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers.” So what we do is, because we’ve got the documents in that area, we have to take them all out, put them in a desk and just go through it and give to the ATO whatever they want, and the rest is just put back into the cabinet. So that’s our filing system.
SENIOR MEMBER: Yes, but for the preparation of business activity statements, so back in 2002 and 2003, you are claiming input tax credits. And are you telling me that you would have had invoices that you didn’t take up at that time; you left them in the pile?
MR CAPORALE:---Yes, and then – - –
SENIOR MEMBER: – - – and you’ve brought them out in 2005?
MR CAPORALE:---Later on. Later on, yes.
SENIOR MEMBER: Three years later?
MR CAPORALE:---Yes.
SENIOR MEMBER: Why is that?
MR CAPORALE: ---It’s because – because what happened is that, because we’ve got so much paperwork coming in, we try our best to file them in – - –
SENIOR MEMBER: You said that they’re filed in the cabinet for this entity?
MR CAPORALE: ---Yes. What I mean by filing is we might get, say, this paper, Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers. Okay? So that goes in the cabinet. Then the next day, we might get another document. So that goes in the cabinet again. So what I mean by filing is that each document that comes in gets put into a cabinet, which is – so the Giuseppe Caporale Structural Engineers cabinet, and it’s just stored there, and it’s stored there till a time that we need to access a document for – - –
SENIOR MEMBER: Don’t you need to access them to complete the BAS on a quarterly basis? Isn’t the logical thing that you would look over those – that pile of documents for invoices that have been received and paid or invoices that have been received – this is on a non-cash basis?
MR CAPORALE: ---Yes.
SENIOR MEMBER: And would you not access them at that time?
MR CAPORALE: ---Well, what happens is that sometimes we – we just – we don’t – - –
It is difficult to accept Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s explanation in relation to the supposedly segregated filing and storage of the Company’s documents for the simple reason that if all the Company’s documents had been kept in one or more dedicated cabinets as he claimed, it should have been a relatively straightforward task to provide them promptly to the Commissioner during the audit. The fact that the Company was unable to do so made the Commissioner highly suspicious about its ITC claims. Counsel for the Commissioner squarely put to Mr Giuseppe Caporale that “for the purposes of these proceedings, [you have] simply gone around and collected any invoice that you can find to substantiate the credits you’ve claimed, whether it’s for your business or not?” Mr Giuseppe Caporale responded “not necessarily”[28], which I found to be very dubious.
[28] Transcript P-63
Finally, Mr Giuseppe Caporale referred in his statement filed with the Tribunal to “receiving advise (sic) that it would be appropriate to err on the side of caution to allow only 70% of invoices that are telephone, vehicle, office related etc”.[29] He explained at the hearing that full ITCs had been claimed by the Company for everything including his telephone and vehicle expenses and other repairs to the family home (which the Company had apparently paid for). He could not explain how the proposed percentage of 70% business usage (which had not been acted on) had been calculated. He also confirmed that he had not maintained any records, such as log books, to substantiate the extent of any business usage.[30]
[29] Exhibit A3
[30] Transcript P-57 to 60
WAS THE COMPANY CARRYING ON AN ENTERPRISE?
Counsel for the Commissioner argued, as his first position, that the Company was not carrying on an enterprise at any stage during the Relevant Period. As a secondary position, counsel for the Commissioner argued that the Company carried on an enterprise for a short period only. In relation to the latter position, counsel for the Commissioner suggested that if the Company is held to be carrying on an enterprise, it could only be on the basis of it carrying on business for a very short period as the activities undertaken were very intermittent.
The Commissioner’s principal submission was that although the Company had been registered for GST since 26 April 2001, the Company was not carrying on any activity of significance during the Relevant Period, that is, the activities of the Company lacked a significant commercial purpose. The Commissioner pointed out that in the period from 1 April 2003 to 30 June 2005, that is, the two years prior to the Relevant Period the subject of the audit, the Company reported no sales in its BASs. In the Relevant Period, the Company had basically done only the structural drawings for two jobs and some site inspections. Specifically, the Company did the structural drawings for a garage at Gymea Bay for which it invoiced $840, and the structural drawings for a residential home at Bellevue Hill for which it invoiced $8,250. It also conducted four site inspections which also involved the writing of reports. The Company charged a total of $550 for the site inspections over a number of tax periods. The Commissioner further observed that there were large gaps of time between those works.
The Commissioner submitted that whatever activity there was, it was incredibly small and at isolated points of time and, therefore, ad hoc and irregular in nature. The Commissioner stated that the irregular nature of the sales and the amounts involved are inconsistent with commercial activity and there was no evidence adduced to establish that the activities were systematic, organised and carried on in a businesslike manner. Moreover, the Company never seemed to make any money suggesting that the Company lacked an intention to make a profit.
In my view, the Company was carrying on an enterprise but only for part of the Relevant Period under review, namely, during the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007. Specifically, I was satisfied on the basis of the evidence regarding the work undertaken for the third parties that the Company was carrying on an enterprise in that period, in the form of a business.
The term “enterprise” is defined, as noted above, in s 9-20 of the GST Act. Paragraph (a) of s 9-20(1) refers to an activity, or series of activities, done in the form of a business where “business” is separately defined, while paragraph (b) refers to an activity or series of activities that can be a commercial venture in the nature of trade. It is expressly stated in s 9-20(1) that one activity alone may qualify as an enterprise. It is accepted that it is not necessary for there to be repeated or continuous activities: Toyama Pty Ltd v Landmark Building Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 83 (Toyama) (at [71]) per White J. In Commissioner of Taxation v Swansea Services Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 402 (Swansea Services), McKerracher J observed at [66] that “enterprise has been deliberately defined very broadly or widely”.
In Swansea Services, McKerracher J also stated at [68] that:
The GST Act definitions of ‘enterprise’ and ‘carrying on an enterprise’ appear on their face (consistently with the Explanatory Memoranda) to be substantially broader than the notion of ‘carrying on a business’ for the purposes of income tax regulation. It would have been a simple matter for Parliament to confine registration to those entities ‘carrying on a business’ in the income tax sense had that been its intention. It follows that those income tax cases determining whether there has been a carrying on of a business may need to be considered with some caution....
I consider that when analysing whether an activity or series of activities are properly characterised as “carrying on an enterprise”, it is necessary to consider whether a business is being carried on, which turns upon an assessment of a number of different factors. This in my view is the analysis required for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “enterprise” in s 9-20(1). More specifically, it makes sense to do so by reference to income tax jurisprudence, remembering that the term “enterprise” is much broader. The analysis of whether activities constitute a business (and by extension, an enterprise) depends, ultimately, “on the large or general impression gained”: see Martin v Federal Commissioner (1953) 90 CLR 470 at 474 and Ferguson v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 37 FLR 310 at 321.
The correctness of this approach, especially the reliance on income tax jurisprudence, was most recently reinforced by Edmonds J in Professional Admin Service Centres Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCA 1123 (Professional Admin Service Centres), a case concerned with whether the applicant was entitled to ITCs in respect of legal services in defending criminal charges against Nikytas Nicholas Petroulias (now known as Michael Felson). The applicant had entered into litigation funding agreements with Mr Felson and one of the issues before the Federal Court was whether the applicant’s enterprise encompassed its litigation funding activities. Edmonds J observed that “[t]he word “business” is defined in s 195-1 of the GST Act in an inclusive and non-inclusive way, but is of little or no assistance in the present context”. His Honour then proceeded to refer to the approach for determining whether an activity or activities constitutes a business at [39], as follows:
Australian income tax law jurisprudence emphasises the existence of a profit-making purpose, repetition and regularity, the conduct of activities using business-like methods, the volume of activity and the existence of a significant commercial purpose as relevant indicia to a finding that the activity or activities constitute a business. But para (b) of s 9-20(1) makes it clear that an “enterprise” can include an isolated commercial venture in the nature of trade, which implies that it be entered into for a commercial purpose, including the purpose of profit-making: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Barnstow [1955] UKHL 3; [1956] AC 14; Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd [1987] HCA 18; (1987) 163 CLR 199; Thiel v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1990] HCA 37; (1990) 171 CLR 338 at 344–345 per Mason CJ, Brennan and Gaudron JJ; at 351–352 per Dawson J; and at 360 per McHugh J.
At paragraph [60] in Professional Admin Service Centres, Edmonds J stated as follows:
As indicated in [39] above, Australian income tax law jurisprudence has emphasised the existence of a profit-making purpose as a necessary indicia to a finding that activities amount to a business, although the plurality in Commissioner of Taxation v Stone (2005) 222 CLR 289 at [55] thought that: “If a taxpayer’s motives are idealistic rather than mercenary, the conclusion that the taxpayer is engaged in a business may still be reached”. Similarly, the para (b) limb of the definition of “enterprise” in s 9-20(1) to the effect that it encompasses an activity, or series of activities, done in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade, contemplates the existence of a profit-making purpose or motive attending the conduct of the activity or activities.
His Honour concluded at [61] that “[i]n many if not most cases the conclusion that a company is engaged in an enterprise (more specifically, a business) will readily be drawn from a “wide survey and exact scrutiny” of the company’s activities...”
Accordingly, a detailed and precise factual enquiry has to be undertaken when determining whether a business (and by extension, an enterprise) exists, having regard to the indicators which are well known from income tax jurisprudence and include those identified above by Edmonds J in Professional Admin Service Centres at [39]. It is accepted by the Tribunal that no particular one of these indicators is necessarily decisive of a business and the lack of one or more of them is similarly not determinative that a business does not exist: Re Dotrac Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2014] AATA 336 at [54]. A similar analysis, in my view, applies to the determination of an enterprise.
Furthermore, because the indicators include the taxpayer’s intentions and purposes, subjective matters can also be relevant to the enquiry of whether a taxpayer is carrying on a business (and by extension, an enterprise).
I have concluded that the Company was carrying on an enterprise in the period spanning 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007, namely, when it undertook paid work comprised of preparing structural engineering drawings. That enterprise was very small and ad hoc in nature but nevertheless had the hallmarks of a business of a sole practitioner: the Company was a one man show with no employees. While the activities did not constitute a significant commercial activity, they nevertheless had a commercial purpose, namely, the provision of professional services for fees. The Company had limited resources and was performing contract work which, consistent with industry norms, depends on engagements from time to time. The Company’s activities did not appear to be well organised and were not carried out in a business-like manner. However, as widely acknowledged, it is not the role of the Commissioner or the Tribunal to dictate how taxpayers go about their businesses (or enterprises).
An influential factor in my consideration was the Company’s profit-making purpose as evident from objective matters, including the fact that the Company advertised for work in a local newspaper and initially sought to make a profit utilising the director’s engineering knowledge and skills.
I was not convinced that the Company was carrying on an enterprise in the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2008, even allowing for whether it was doing so “in the form of” a business or, in the form of an adventure in the nature of trade. This is because the Company could not point to any relevant activity done in that timeframe nor even any activities which might suggest that it was in the course of terminating its enterprise, having regard to the extended meaning of “carrying on” an enterprise. Specifically, after 30 June 2007, the Company did not demonstrate that it did anything, except continue to claim ITCs for certain acquisitions, mostly to do with Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s telephone and petrol expenses. Claiming GST refunds from the Commissioner does not, on any view, constitute carrying on an enterprise. Significantly, the Company had given up advertising for engineering work some years beforehand. Objectively, the Company had no real expectation of a profit as its expenses were disproportionate to any income received. While the subjective intention expressed by the Company’s director, Mr Giuseppe Caporale, was that the Company intended to make a profit when it was formed, I was not persuaded that this was still the case in the latter part of the Relevant Period.
It follows from my decision that the Company was carrying on an enterprise during part of the Relevant Period only, namely, the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007, that the Company had a GST liability on the taxable supplies, and is also entitled to claim ITCs for the creditable acquisitions that it made during that period only (provided the other requirements for creditable acquisitions were satisfied).
With respect to the taxable supplies made by the Company during the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2007, Mr Giuseppe Caporale acknowledged at the hearing that the Company had not remitted its GST liability on certain sales made during that time on the basis of the invoices that it had issued. It is important to point out that the GST liability was required to be attributed by the Company to the tax periods in which the invoices had been issued by the Company as it had adopted the non-cash (accruals) basis of accounting for GST: s 29-5(1)(b) of the GST Act. The GST payable on the taxable supplies made by the Company which was not previously reported has been taken into account by the Tribunal in determining the revised net amounts for the quarterly tax periods within the Relevant Period – see paragraph [133] below.
IS THE COMPANY ENTITLED TO CLAIM ITCS FOR ACQUISITIONS MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?
The Company is only entitled to claim ITCs for “creditable acquisitions”. The requirements of a creditable acquisition are set out in s 11-5 of the GST Act, extracted at paragraph [12] above.
First, the Company is only entitled to ITCs for acquisitions that it makes: s 11-20 of the GST Act. It is not entitled to ITCs for another entity’s acquisitions, as noted at paragraph [61] above.
Second, the Company makes a creditable acquisition if it acquires anything solely or partly for a “creditable purpose”. “Creditable purpose” is defined in s 11-15 (see paragraph [16] above). Broadly, the Company only acquires a thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that it acquires it in carrying on its enterprise. However, under
s 11-15(2), the Company does not acquire the thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that the acquisition is, relevantly, of a private nature.
It is clear from the terms of s 11-15(1) that the Company has to be carrying on an enterprise at the time that the acquisitions are made for it to satisfy the creditable purpose test. Therefore, based on my conclusion that the Company was not carrying on an enterprise after 1 July 2007, none of its acquisitions after that date are for a creditable purpose.
It is necessary to also refer to the attribution rules regarding ITCs. In broad terms, as the Company was an accruals taxpayer, the entitlement to an ITC for a creditable acquisition was generally attributable to the tax period in which the supplier issued an invoice to the Company relating to the acquisition or when the Company made any payment for the taxable supply, whichever occurred first: s 29-10(1).
There are further rules, however, which affect the attribution of ITCs, to do with tax invoices and the time when ITCs are taken into account in BASs.
As set out at paragraph [21] above, s 29-10(3) provides that a taxpayer is unable to claim an ITC for a “creditable acquisition”, unless it holds a tax invoice at the time that it lodges its BAS for that tax period. If a taxpayer’s BAS for a tax period does not take into account an ITC attributable to that tax period, then the ITC is not attributable to that tax period and it is instead attributable to the tax period in which the taxpayer gives the Commissioner a BAS that does take the ITC into account: s 29-10(4). Also, an ITC can only be attributed once.
Consequently, the upper limit of the Company’s ITC entitlement for any given tax period is the amount claimed in the BAS. It follows that where the Company lodged BASs with nil ITCs claimed, namely, for the quarters ended June 2007, September 2007 and December 2007, but it later claimed to be entitled to ITCs on the basis of subsequently having found invoices, as reflected in the 2009 and 2012 spread sheets, it cannot claim those ITCs in those respective quarterly tax periods (even if the Company was carrying on an enterprise) as the ITCs were plainly not taken into account in the relevant BASs.
As also noted above at paragraphs [22] to [25], s 29-70 and Regulation 29-70.01 explained the requirements for valid tax invoices at the relevant time. These were quite prescriptive as to the details to be set out on tax invoices and failure to conform meant that these documents were invalid for GST purposes. The Commissioner did not exercise his discretion to treat any deficient invoices as valid tax invoices.
Attached as Annexure A to this decision is a table setting out in summary form, in respect of each document that the Company produced, whether the Company is entitled to claim an ITC and, if not, the reasons for rejecting the claim. The reasons are set out by reference to various categories discussed below. Many of the claims are rejected for more than one reason, for example, because the Company failed to prove that there was not possible duplication as well as private use of the acquisition. For completeness, I have also considered the claims for ITCs in the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2008 even though I have concluded that the Company was not carrying on an enterprise at that time and, therefore, not entitled to claim ITCs on any acquisitions during those periods.
Possible Duplication
As noted at paragraphs [52] to [54] above, the Company claimed ITCs in its quarterly BASs lodged in the Relevant Period for numerous invoices which predated the quarterly tax periods, some of these invoices having dates as far back as 2001 and 2002. The Commissioner was concerned as to the possible duplication of claims for ITCs.
The Company attempted to prove that it was entitled to claim the ITCs and, in particular, that it had not double counted any ITCs by preparing a listing of the tax invoices that had been taken up by the Company in earlier tax periods and by then seeking to show that these were not the same tax invoices in respect of which ITCs were being claimed in the quarterly tax periods under review. I was not satisfied that this exercise or the resulting list had any integrity even if it was undertaken by the Company’s external accountant. There were numerous reasons.
First, the Company had no understanding of the basis for the claims in the quarterly tax periods under review let alone the basis for the claims in the earlier tax periods dating back to 2001, as it kept no contemporaneous work papers to support any of its claims for ITCs. Secondly, the Company had no internal controls or systems for preparing and checking its BASs or, if it did, none were explained to the Tribunal to satisfy me that it had disciplined processes for claiming ITCs. Thirdly, the Company did not produce the invoices the subject of ITC claims in the earlier tax periods so there was no way of verifying, in the absence of other work papers, for what invoices the Company had actually claimed ITCs in the earlier BASs and whether they reconciled with the numbers in its list. The Commissioner produced the earlier BASs lodged, but these did not assist the Company. Fourthly, there was no evidence before the Tribunal by the accountant who apparently did the exercise of checking for possible duplication. Finally, the Company conceded that there had been some instances of double counting of aged invoices.[31]
[31] Transcript P-175
The Company failed, in these circumstances, to discharge the onus of proving that it was entitled to claim the ITCs which would ordinarily have been claimed in earlier tax periods consistent with the dates of the invoices. Therefore, the Company is not entitled to ITCs in respect of invoices which are marked as “possible duplication” in Annexure A.
Private Use
A vast number of ITCs claimed by the Company were in respect of mobile phone, petrol and vehicle expenses, including insurance and registration fees. Most of the related documents were issued to Mr Giuseppe Caporale in his personal name and not in the name of the Company so ITCs that were rejected for “private use” were invariably also rejected on the basis that the things were “not acquired by the Company” (see further below). The car was also registered in Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s name and the usage was shown as ‘private’.
Pursuant to s 11-15(2)(b), the private use of things does not of itself preclude the things from been acquired in carrying on an enterprise and qualifying as having a creditable purpose. As explained by Senior Member O’Loughlin in Re Davsa Forty-Ninth Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Krongold Ford Business Unit Trust and Commissioner of Taxation [2014] AATA 337 at [40], private use only prevents full ITCs being allowed because there are apportionment rules in each of ss 11-5(a), 11-15(2) and 11-25 of the GST Act.
The Company claimed full ITCs for many of the above mentioned acquisitions without making any allowance for private use. There were other acquisitions relating to the maintenance of the family home, for example, locksmith charges and electrical and plumbing works in respect of which the Company also claimed full ITCs. I do not accept that the family home at which the Caporale family lived was, in its entirety, business premises with a couple of beds in it, as Mr Giuseppe Caporale stated in his oral evidence.
As noted at paragraph [77] above, Mr Giuseppe Caporale stated that their accountant had at some stage apparently recommended only claiming 70% ITCs for some of these acquisitions but this had not been actioned. No explanation was offered to justify the proposed percentage of 70% business usage and the Company maintained no records, such as log books, to substantiate the extent of any business usage. The extent to which ITCs are allowable when there is an element of private use is a question of appropriate apportionment: Re Davsa at [40]. The Company did not demonstrate to the Tribunal what that appropriate percentage was.
The Company is not entitled to ITCs in respect of invoices which are marked as “private use” in Annexure A because it failed to establish that it was entitled to claim the full ITCs (or any lesser amount).
Not Acquired By Company
A taxpayer has to make the acquisitions to be entitled to claim the ITCs. There were some tax invoices that were addressed to Mr Giuseppe Caporale, including for his mobile phone and motor vehicle expenses where it was not clear if the Company had made the acquisitions. Also in this category were some invoices addressed to Mr Giuseppe Caporale for membership of professional bodies such as Engineers Australia.
The issue was complicated by the fact that Mr Giuseppe Caporale frequently paid for these invoices using his personal credit cards and it was uncertain whether the Company had ever reimbursed him for the expenses so as to be able to claim the ITCs pursuant to Division 111 of the GST Act (which provides for ITCs in some circumstances for certain reimbursements). This was partly due to the failure of the Company to demonstrate how it was funded to make acquisitions.
The Company is not entitled to ITCs in respect of invoices which are marked as “not acquired by Company” in Annexure A because it failed to establish that it made the acquisitions and or it failed to establish that it had reimbursed Mr Giuseppe Caporale.
Not a Tax Invoice
There were some documents in respect of which the Company claimed ITCs which were not tax invoices. Often, these were supplier’s statements of account issued as reminders for payment and, on other occasions, they were the Company’s cheque stubs or other documents.
As set out at paragraphs [22] to [25] above, documents which failed to meet the requirements set out in the GST Act and GST Regulations were not regarded as valid tax invoices.
The Company is not entitled to ITCs in respect of invoices which are marked as “not a tax invoice” in Annexure A because the Company did not hold tax invoices at the time of lodging its BASs: s 29-10(3) of the GST Act.
No GST Charged
The Company claimed ITCs on invoices where no GST was imposed because, for example, the GST does not apply such as in respect of ASIC annual fees.
The Company is not entitled to ITCs in respect of invoices which are marked “no GST charged” in the attached table as the amount of the ITC is equal to the amount of the GST payable on the supply of the thing acquired: s 11-25.
In addition, the Company is not entitled to claim ITCs in excess of what was charged by the suppliers. Adjusted claims for a few instances where the Company claimed amounts exceeding the GST charged by the suppliers are separately identified in Annexure A.
IS THE COMPANY LIABLE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AT THE RATE OF 90%?
The Commissioner formed the view that the Company was liable to pay a penalty at the highest rate of 75% on the basis that there had been an intentional disregard as to the operation of the tax laws and, further, that it was appropriate to increase this base penalty amount by 20% due to certain aggravating factors for all tax periods, except for the quarterly tax period ended 30 September 2005. I was not convinced that the penalties imposed was excessive nor that it should be remitted to any extent. Accordingly, I agree with the Commissioner’s decisions on the rate of the penalty, however the penalty should apply only to the revised tax shortfall.
Division 284 of Schedule 1 to the TAA sets out the administrative penalty regime that applies to matters required to be reported on activity statements from 1 July 2000. Subdivision 284-B was amended with a date of effect of 4 June 2010, but the penalty imposed in respect of the Company is in respect of statements made prior to 4 June 2010. Accordingly, the provisions referred to below are as the law was prior to those amendments. Relevantly, s 284-75(1) provided as follows (omitting the note):
284‑75 Liability to penalty
(1) You are liable to an administrative penalty if:
(a) you or your agent makes a statement to the Commissioner or to an entity that is exercising powers or performing functions under a *taxation law; and
(b) the statement is false or misleading in a material particular, whether because of things in it or omitted from it; and
(c) you have a *shortfall amount as a result of the statement.
A statement is false or misleading in a material particular if it affects a decision regarding the calculation of an entity’s tax liability or entitlement to a credit or refund. Most items of information provided in a BAS will be material particulars.
Subsection 284-80(1) of Schedule 1 to the TAA states that you have a shortfall amount if an item in the table in the subsection applies to you. A shortfall amount arises where:
·a taxpayer’s tax liability worked out on the basis of the false statement is less than it would have been if the statement was not false or misleading; or
·the amount that the Commissioner must pay or credit a taxpayer worked out on the basis of the false statement is more than it would be if the statement was not false or misleading.
Section 284-90 of Schedule 1 to the TAA sets out a table for the determination of the base penalty amount as a percentage of the shortfall amount, depending on the behaviour applicable at the time the shortfall occurred. Relevantly, the Commissioner assessed the Company at the rate of 75% of the shortfall amount on the basis that the shortfall resulted from an intentional disregard of a taxation law.
Section 284-220 of Schedule 1 to the TAA provides circumstances where the base penalty amount is increased by 20% in accordance with criteria set out in the TAA, including the taxpayer’s actions to prevent or obstruct the Commissioner from finding out about a shortfall amount, the taxpayer’s knowledge of the shortfall amount and or prior penalty history.
Section 298-20 of Schedule 1 to the TAA gives the Commissioner the discretion to remit all or part of an administrative penalty.
The factors that I considered to be relevant to the question of penalty in relation to the Company include the following:
(a)The Company’s submission that payment of the GST on its taxable supplies was overlooked by it (just as some ITCs were also missed by it and discovered later) is disingenuous. The fact is that the Company did not account for the bulk of its GST liability in the right quarterly BAS or at all and it is unlikely that the Company would have ever accounted for it except that it was detected upon audit and it became critical for the Company’s argument that it was carrying on an enterprise to show that it actually made taxable supplies. The Company was quick to take up ITCs in later BASs lodged by it but never volunteered information about its failures to disclose its GST liability. Indeed, the Company made no effort to address the non-reporting of its GST liability. It adopted an opportunistic approach to its tax affairs.
(b)Ms Caporale was the authorised representative of the Company. She prepared the BASs for the Company and other companies controlled by the Caporale family and assisted Mr Giuseppe Caporale in the preparation of the spread sheets after the Company lodged its objection. She is an experienced businesswoman in the property industry and also familiar with GST issues and risks, having previously undergone many GST reviews, audits and litigation in relation to prior developments of the Caporale group of entities.
(c)Ms Caporale, on behalf of the Company, retained tax agents to assist in relation to the preparation of the income tax returns which all showed nil income but she always took control of and prepared and lodged all the BASs, all of which produced GST refunds to the Company. What was reported in the income tax returns (whether right or wrong) did not reflect what was reported in the BASs. In these circumstances, the ‘in–house’ preparation of the Company’s BASs suggested that the Company adopted a cavalier approach to its GST affairs compared to the lodgement of its income tax returns by an independent tax agent.
(d)She lodged the BASs for the Company claiming ITCs which she knew and Mr Giuseppe Caporale knew, or at least ought to have known, the Company was not entitled to because the Company did not hold the requisite tax invoices or it (or related entities) had already claimed ITCs. That is to say, there was double (or more) counting in relation to the ITCs.
(e)The Company claimed full ITCs in relation to expenses of a private nature such as petrol, mobile telephone expenses and cigarettes as well as electrical and plumbing services for the family. At some stage, the Company’s accountant apparently recommended that the Company claim only 70% ITCs but nothing was done by the Company to action any amendments to the BASs or even to understand the basis of the suggested apportionment.
(f)Notwithstanding repeated requests by the Commissioner, the Company did not provide any information and documents, especially the tax invoices, until after the notices of assessment were issued and even then, after the Company’s objection was lodged. Mr Giuseppe Caporale’s oral evidence that the Company’s documents were all kept in one or two cabinets, if it is believed, suggests that the Company could have easily collated the documents and provided them to the Commissioner and its failure, therefore, to do so was contemptuous.
(g)The nature of the evidence adduced at the hearing, including the different versions of the spread sheets and the revelation of “supplementary tax invoices for the Relevant Period” many of which were for stationery and printing costs, strongly suggested that the Company was backfilling its claims for ITCs by looking for whatever tax invoices it could find, regardless of whether or not they were for acquisitions made by the Company. In other words, it did not hold the valid tax invoices at the time of lodging its BASs.
Having regard to those factors, I was not satisfied that the Company’s ITC claims did not result from intentional disregard of the GST law. The Company failed to discharge its onus of proving that the assessment of administrative penalty was excessive. In relation to the 20% uplift arising from s 284-220, in my view, this was appropriate in circumstances where the Company ignored the Commissioner’s repeated requests for information. The Company should have known that its claims would result in refunds to which it was not entitled. Accordingly, the increase of the base penalty by 20% was justified where it was applied.
SHOULD THE PENALTY BE REMITTED?
There is no basis for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to remit any part of the penalty, particularly taking into account the fact that the Company appeared to have concealed its GST liability. It is reasonable to infer that Mr Giuseppe Caporale knew that the Company’s GST liability was understated at the same time that the ITCs were overstated, as many ITCs claimed in the BASs were being falsely claimed by the Company.
CONCLUSION
The Commissioner’s objection decision in respect of the objection to the assessments of net amount is set aside. Instead the Tribunal decides to allow the objection in part such that the revised net amounts for the quarterly tax periods, as per the Tribunal’s reasons, are set out in column D of Annexure B.[32] The revised net amounts take into account the GST payable on taxable supplies that were not previously reported by the Company as well as the ITCs allowed by the Tribunal, as a result of a review of its ITC claims for each of the quarterly tax periods.
[32] I have proceeded in accordance with s 14ZR of the TAA which deems two or more taxation decisions covered by a single notice to be one taxation decision because the assessments of net amount were notified in one notice.
The Commissioner’s objection decision in respect of administrative penalty is set aside. Instead the Tribunal decides to allow the objection in part, but only as a consequence of the reduced tax shortfall amounts referred to in paragraph [133] and set out in column E of Annexure B. The penalty rate of 75% of the tax shortfall amount, increased by 20%, is upheld for all of the quarterly tax periods except for the quarterly tax period ended 30 September 2005 where the 75% penalty rate (without any increase) is upheld. I see no reason to disturb that aspect of the Commissioner’s decision on the penalty. There was also no reason to remit any of the penalties.
I certify that the preceding 134 (one hundred thirty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms G Lazanas, Senior Member. ........[Sgd]................................................................
Associate
Dated 25 July 2014
Date(s) of hearing 1 & 2 August 2013 Advocate for the Applicant Ms R Caporale Counsel for the Respondent Mr A J O'Brien Solicitors for the Respondent ATO Legal Services ANNEXURE A
| 1/07/2005 to 30/09/2005- Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 27/07/2005 | ACSE SEMINAR | 310 | 28.18 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 1/07/2005 | ASI SEMINAR | 110 | 10.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 14/07/2005 | ABBEY ELECTRICAL | 204 | 18.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 27/07/2005 | ZARB DRAFTING SERVICES | 440 | 40.00 | |||||||||||||
| 26/04/2001 | SHELFCOM | 720 | 65.45 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 27/04/2001 | SHELFCOM | 235 | 21.36 | X | ||||||||||||
| 1/03/2003 | ASIC | 212 | 19.27 | X | ||||||||||||
| 1/03/2004 | ASIC | 212 | 19.27 | X | ||||||||||||
| 1/03/2005 | ASIC | 212 | 19.27 | X | ||||||||||||
| 29/07/2002 | GOODYEAR SUTHERLAND | 222 | 20.22 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 9/01/2002 | NRMA INSURANCE | 339 | 30.80 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 25/08/2002 | ASIC | 260 | 23.64 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 24/11/2002 | HARVEY NORMAN CARINGBAH | 20 | 1.81 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 10/01/2003 | NRMA INSURANCE | 925 | 84.05 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 5/01/2002 | CALTEX LILLI PILLI REGO | 26 | 2.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/09/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 34 | 3.05 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 6/11/2001 | EEA SHORT COURSE | 693 | 63.00 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 8/10/2002 | SENSIS PTY LTD | 1,045 | 95.00 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/10/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 2 | 0.21 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/11/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14 | 1.30 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/12/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 60 | 5.43 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/01/2003 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 28 | 2.57 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/09/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/04/2003 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 45 | 4.08 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 23/12/2002 | CALTEX REGO | 27 | 2.47 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 9/01/2003 | NRMA INSURANCE | 329 | 29.90 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/06/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/07/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 26 | 2.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/08/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/10/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.02 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 31/05/2002 | GIO BUSINESS INSURANCE | 945 | 85.92 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/02/2003 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 24 | 2.22 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/06/2003 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/03/2003 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 37 | 3.38 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 6/05/2003 | QBE WORKS COMPENSATION | 120 | 10.91 | X | ||||||||||||
| 15/05/2002 | ENGINEERS AUST MEMBERSHIP | 413 | 37.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/06/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 23 | 2.12 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/08/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 20/08/2002 | PACIFIC ACCESS PTY LTD | 2,693 | 244.83 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 26/02/2002 | INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AUST | 595 | X | X | ||||||||||||
| 11/09/2001 | PACIFIC ACCESS PTY LTD | 137 | 12.45 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 11/09/2001 | PACIFIC ACCESS PTY LTD | 274 | 24.91 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 18/05/2001 | INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AUST | 396 | 36.00 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 16/07/2001 | INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AUST | 411 | 37.36 | X | ||||||||||||
| 27/05/2005 | ASIC | 212 | 0.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| Total purchases and ITCs per spread sheet | 13,162 | 1196.59 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs per BAS lodged | 984 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 40 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/10/2005- 31/12/2005- Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 28/06/2002 | FAIRFAX COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER | 123 | 11.20 | X | ||||||||||||
| 28/06/2002 | WELDON BRAKE & CLUTCH | 49 | 4.45 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/11/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/12/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 10/01/2003 | NRMA INSURANCE | 925 | 84.05 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 28/02/2002 | FAIRFAX COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER | 123 | 11.20 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/02/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 33 | 2.95 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/05/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 49 | 4.48 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 10/01/2002 | NRMA INSURANCE | 953 | 86.62 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 5/01/2002 | REGO | 228 | 20.73 | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| 17/04/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 25 | 2.25 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 8/09/2002 | SENSIS PTY LTD | 3,833 | 348.44 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/04/2001 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 122 | 11.07 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/03/2002 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 22 | 2.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 29/01/2002 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 1,804 | 163.96 | X | ||||||||||||
| 5/03/2003 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 2,212 | 201.10 | X | ||||||||||||
| 9/02/2004 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 3,113 | 283.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 28/02/2005 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 2,937 | 267.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 16/09/2005 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 29/09/2005 | INDUCTA ENGINEERING SEMINAR | 330 | 30.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 25/10/2005 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | |||||||||||||
| 31/10/2005 | JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS | 379.06 | 34.46 | X | Unrelated to Company’s enterprise – advertisement of property for lease | |||||||||||
| 11/11/2005 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | |||||||||||||
| 31/12/2005 | JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS | 280.5 | 25.50 | |||||||||||||
| 12/12/2005 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE MEMBERSHIP | 96.25 | 8.75 | |||||||||||||
| 31/12/2005 | JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS | 56.1 | 5.10 | |||||||||||||
| 30/12/2005 | CRONULLA LOCKSMITHS LILLI PILLI | 88 | 8.00 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 21/05/2001 | ENGINEERING SYSTEMS PTY LTD | 1900 | 172.73 | X | ||||||||||||
| 15/04/2004 | C.ZARB DRAFTING SERVICES | 1980 | 180.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 26/11/2001 | BP EXPRESS GYMEA | 20 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 27/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 1 | 0.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 27/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 10 | 0.91 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 27/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 20 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 5 | 0.45 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 5 | 0.45 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 3 | 0.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 27/11/2001 | OFFICEWORKS | 5 | 0.45 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/04/2003 | LEICHHARDT COUNCIL PARKING | 2.6 | 0.24 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 15/09/2003 | WOOLLAHRA COUNCIL PARKING | 3.2 | 0.29 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 11/09/2003 | KINKOS LIVERPOOL ST | 9 | 0.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 1/04/2003 | LEICHHARDT COUNCIL PARKING | 4.2 | 0.38 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 24/07/2004 | 7-ELEVEN CARINGBAH | 50.45 | 4.59 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/07/2004 | COLES EXPRESS TAREN POINT | 35.31 | 3.21 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 2/04/2003 | AUSTRALIA POST CARINGBAH | 8.4 | 0.76 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/02/2003 | 7-ELEVEN CARINGBAH | 58.41 | 5.31 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 14/08/2003 | CALLAGHAN COLLISION CENTRE | 450 | 40.91 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 15/07/2003 | BP CARINGBAH | 45.1 | 4.10 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/08/2004 | 7-ELEVEN CARINGBAH | 58.31 | 5.30 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 25/08/2004 | 7-ELEVEN CARINGBAH | 50.33 | 4.58 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/08/2004 | COLES EXPRESS TAREN POINT | 45.77 | 4.16 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 14/08/2004 | COLES EXPPRESS BRIGHTON | 20.37 | 1.85 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 6/11/2004 | COLES EXPRESS TAREN POINT | 54.03 | 4.91 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 8/11/2004 | COLES EXPRESS TAREN POINT | 49.24 | 4.48 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 26/07/2003 | SHELL TAREN POINT | 32.65 | 2.97 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 13/06/2005 | WOOLLAHRA COUNCIL PARKING | 3 | 0.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 29/05/2001 | OFFICEWORKS CARLTON | 8.85 | 0.80 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 4/07/2002 | SHELL PAGEWOOD SELF SERV | 26.25 | 2.39 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 18/06/2005 | WOOLLAHRA COUNCIL PARKING | 3.4 | 0.31 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 28/09/2005 | EASTERN DISTRIBUTOR TOLL | 4 | 0.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| Total purchases and ITCs per spread sheet | 22,853 | 2077.56 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs per BAS lodged | 2065 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCS allowed by Tribunal | 57 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/01/2006- 31/03/2006-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 31/01/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 125 | 11.36 | |||||||||||||
| 9/02/2006 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 2345.75 | 213.25 | GST is $205 | ||||||||||||
| 23/02/2006 | ACEA SEMINAR | 350 | 31.82 | |||||||||||||
| 23/03/2006 | CEMENT & CONCRETE SEMINAR | 395 | 35.91 | |||||||||||||
| 27/03/2006 | ZARB DRAFTING SERVICE | 4125 | 375.00 | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||||
| 22/05/2002 | INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AUST | 412.5 | 37.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 18/07/2002 | BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AUST | 275 | 25.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 13/11/2002 | ENGINEERING SYSTEMS | 880 | 80.00 | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | ||||||||||
| 11/11/2002 | ENGINEERING SYSTEMS | 220 | 20.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 25/12/2002 | BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AUST | 430 | 39.09 | X | ||||||||||||
| Total purchases and ITCs per spread sheet | 9558.25 | 868.93 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 292 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 284 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/04/2006- 30/06/2006-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 7/04/2006 | SYDNEY EXHIBITION CAR PARK | 26 | 2.36 | X | ||||||||||||
| 10/04/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | |||||||||||||
| 26/04/2006 | M2 HILLS MOTORWAY | 3.8 | 0.35 | X | ||||||||||||
| 21/04/2006 | SAI GLOBAL SEMINAR | 250 | 22.73 | X | ||||||||||||
| 13/04/2006 | CEMENT & CONCRETE SEMINAR | 360 | 32.73 | |||||||||||||
| 28/04/2006 | ASIC FEES | 212 | 19.27 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 4/05/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 24/05/2006 | ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA MEMBERSHIP | 530.4 | 48.22 | X | ||||||||||||
| 4/05/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 220 | 20.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 17/05/2006 | CAMBRIDGE WORK COMPENSATION | 175 | 15.91 | |||||||||||||
| 7/06/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | |||||||||||||
| 23/06/2006 | ACSE SEMINAR | 310 | 28.18 | X | ||||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 2404.2 | 218.56 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 155 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 70 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/07/2006-30/09/2006-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 3/07/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | |||||||||||||
| 7/08/2006 | MASTER BUILDER ASSOC SEMINAR | 15 | 1.36 | X | ||||||||||||
| 9/08/2006 | ABBEY ELECTRICAL FOR LILLI PILLI | 2667.5 | 242.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 31/08/2006 | ASI MEMBERSHIP | 110 | 10.00 | |||||||||||||
| 1/08/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | |||||||||||||
| 22/08/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/08/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 36.67 | 3.33 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 5/09/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUE MEMBERSHIP | 192.5 | 17.50 | |||||||||||||
| 22/09/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/09/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 36.82 | 3.35 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 2/09/2006 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | X | ||||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 3362.47 | 305.68 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 285 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 42 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/10/2006- 31/12/2006-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 4/10/2006 | CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOC SEMINAR | 125 | 11.36 | X | ||||||||||||
| 22/10/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/10/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 59.97 | 5.45 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 22/11/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/11/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 39.25 | 3.57 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 22/12/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/12/2006 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 52.77 | 4.80 | X | X | |||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 321.96 | 29.27 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 11 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/01/2007- 31/03/2007-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 22/01/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/01/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 34.61 | 3.15 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 11/02/2007 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 2007.5 | 182.50 | X | ||||||||||||
| 22/02/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/02/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 24.86 | 2.26 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 23/03/2007 | ACEA SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | |||||||||||||
| 22/03/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/03/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/03/2007 | CONCRETE PIPE ASSOC AUST SEMINAR | 70 | 6.36 | X | ||||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 2316.93 | 210.63 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 182 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 11 | |||||||||||||||
1/04/2007- 30/06/2007-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Other | Comments | ||||||
| 27/04/2007 | ASIC FEES | 212 | 0.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 22/04/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/04/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 8/05/2007 | ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA MEMBERSHIP | 548.9 | 49.90 | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||||
| 22/05/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/05/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 46.53 | 4.23 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 16/05/2007 | ACEA SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | ||||||||||
| 30/06/2007 | JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS | 1489.18 | 135.38 | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||||
| 22/06/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/06/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 25.48 | 2.32 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 2502.05 | 208.19 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCS allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/07/2007- 30/09/2007-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Not carrying on an enterprise | Other / Comments | ||||||
| 31/07/2007 | ASI MEMBERSHIP | 110 | 10.00 | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | ||||||||||
| 22/07/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/07/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 10/08/2007 | CAMBRIDGE WORKERS COMP | 175 | 15.91 | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||||
| 31/08/2007 | JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS | 99.18 | 9.02 | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | ||||||||||
| 17/08/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 22/08/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 15/09/2007 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||||
| 22/09/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/09/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 551.12 | 50.10 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/10/2007- 31/12/2007-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Not carrying on an enterprise | Other / Comments | ||||||
| 22/10/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/10/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 22/11/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 37.64 | 3.42 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 22/12/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 27.24 | 2.48 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 17/12/2007 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 16/12/2007 | PRIMUS TELECOM | 78.73 | 7.16 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| 15/12/2007 | PRIMUS TELECOM | 75.96 | 6.91 | X | X | X | ITC claim exceeds BAS claim | |||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 264.54 | 24.05 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/01/2008- 31/03/2008-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Not carrying on an enterprise | Other /Comments | ||||||
| 1/01/2008 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE MEMBERSHIP | 198 | 18.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 17/01/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 17.7 | 1.61 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/01/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 18.51 | 111.91 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/02/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 13.34 | 1.21 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/02/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 12.53 | 1.14 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 11/02/2008 | MARSH PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE | 1897.5 | 172.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/03/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/03/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 119.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 2187.56 | 426.82 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 172 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/04/2008-30/06/2008-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Not carrying on an enterprise | Comments | ||||||
| 27/04/2008 | ASIC FEE | 212 | 19.27 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/04/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/04/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 7/05/2008 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 77 | 7.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 10/05/2008 | ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA MEMBERSHIP | 566.5 | 51.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 17/05/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 23.29 | 2.12 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/05/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 14.99 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 5/05/2008 | GARY RENOUF PLUMBING FORLILLI PILLI | 295.9 | 26.90 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| 5/06/2008 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | X | ||||||||||||
| 21/06/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 20.68 | 1.88 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 25/06/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/06/2008 | RICOH FOR PHOTOCOPIER | 760 | 69.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 4/06/2008 | CCAA SEMINAR | 36 | 3.27 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 27/06/2008 | ACSE SEMINAR | 310 | 28.18 | X | X | |||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 2481.34 | 225.58 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 90 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/07/2008-30/09/2008-Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Not carrying on an enterprise | Comments | ||||||
| 8/07/2008 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 25/07/2008 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 26/07/2008 | CAMBRIDGE WORKERS COMP | 175 | 15.91 | X | ||||||||||||
| 17/07/2008 | ASI MEMBERSHIP | 137.5 | 12.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 20/07/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 25/07/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/07/2008 | ACA SEMINAR | 145 | 13.18 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 12/08/2008 | CABCHARGE | 91 | 8.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/08/2008 | MOBIL SANS SOUCI | 100.02 | 9.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 23/08/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 16.26 | 1.48 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 26/08/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 23/08/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 20.9 | 1.90 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 28/08/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 30.32 | 2.76 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/08/2008 | ABBEY ELECTRICAL FOR LILLI PILLI | 180 | 16.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 25/09/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 51.7 | 4.70 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/09/2008 | ECKERSLEY FOR FINE ART PAPER | 10.95 | 1.00 | X | ||||||||||||
| 12/09/2008 | WAVERLEY COUNCIL PARKING | 1 | 0.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/09/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 15.33 | 1.39 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/09/2008 | STAR SHOP AT CALTEX WOOLOOWARE | 20.01 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 3/09/2008 | BP CONNECT RUNWAY MASCOT | 50.01 | 4.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 8/09/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 15.04 | 1.37 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 10/09/2008 | BP CONNECT CRONULLA | 15.09 | 1.37 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 10/09/2008 | MOBIL SANS SOUCI | 25 | 2.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 11/09/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 14.98 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/09/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 6.03 | 0.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/09/2008 | D.R.& SONS PTY LTD FOR PETROL | 25 | 2.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 20/09/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 50 | 4.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 19/09/2008 | MOBIL SANS SOUCI | 20.02 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 20/09/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 51.41 | 4.67 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 28/09/2008 | COLES EXPRESS CAPTAIN COOK | 50.21 | 4.56 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/09/2008 | ASI MEMBERSHIP | 137.5 | 12.50 | X | X | |||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 1740.28 | 158.21 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 61 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| 1/10/08- 31/12/08 - Purchases | ||||||||||||||||
| Date | Invoice | Amount | ITC claim | Possible duplication | Private use | Not acquired by Company | Not a tax invoice | No GST charged | Not carrying on an enterprise | Other / Comments | ||||||
| 8/10/2008 | WAVERLEY COUNCIL PARKING | 0.8 | 0.07 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/10/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 25.04 | 2.28 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 9/10/2008 | TELSTRA PIGPOND INTERNET | 65.84 | 5.99 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/10/2008 | EASTERN DISTRIBUTOR | 5 | 0.45 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/10/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 25 | 2.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/10/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 56.02 | 5.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/10/2008 | CALTEX STARSHOP LILLI PILLI | 50.02 | 4.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/10/2008 | COLES EXPRESS WATERLOO | 50.07 | 4.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 20/10/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 29.34 | 2.67 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 25/10/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 30/10/2008 | BP KOGARAH | 30.01 | 2.73 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 7/10/2008 | ACEA SEMINAR | 120 | 10.91 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 9/11/2008 | D.R.MOON & SONS PTY LTD FOR PETROL | 25 | 2.27 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/11/2008 | ABBEY ELECTRICAL FOR LILLI PILLI | 176 | 16.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 19/11/2008 | ST. GEORGE CABS ELITE FLEET | 10.3 | 0.94 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 13/11/2008 | WILSON PARKING CLARENCE ST SYD | 34 | 3.09 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/11/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 2.33 | 0.21 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 18/11/2008 | MOBIL SANS SOUCI | 99.56 | 9.05 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 22/11/2008 | WILLOUGHBY COUNCIL PARKING | 6 | 0.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 20/11/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 39.71 | 3.61 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 26/11/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 50 | 4.55 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 26/11/2008 | MOBIL SANS SOUCI | 40 | 3.64 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 27/11/2008 | CABCHARGE TAXI M7749 | 65.9 | 5.99 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/12/2008 | CONCRETE INSTITUTE MEMBERSHIP | 220 | 20.00 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 31/12/2008 | BP EXPRESS BEXLEY | 18.01 | 1.64 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 20/12/2008 | TELSTRA MOBILE | 21.38 | 1.94 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 30/12/2008 | COLES EXPRESS RAMSGATE | 20 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 16/12/2008 | AUSTRALIA POST TAREN POINT | 11 | 1.00 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 14/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 49.36 | 4.49 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 12/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 30.02 | 2.73 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 19/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 20.01 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 26/12/2008 | COLES EXPRESS CAPTAIN COOK | 40.07 | 3.64 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 30/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 15 | 1.36 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 28/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 20 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 23/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 20 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 21/12/2008 | D.R.MOON & SON PTY LTD - PETROL | 15.02 | 1.37 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 18/12/2008 | MOBIL SANS SOUCI | 20 | 1.82 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| 17/12/2008 | MBE BUSINESS SERVICES CARINGBAH | 5 | 0.45 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 16/12/2008 | MBE BUSINESS SERVICES CARINGBAH | 92.55 | 8.41 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 10/12/2008 | COLES EXPRESS TAREN POINT | 20.02 | 1.82 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 10/12/2008 | KOGARAH COUNCIL PARKING | 5 | 0.45 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 3/12/2008 | WAVERLY COUNCIL PARKING | 2 | 0.18 | X | X | |||||||||||
| 1/12/2008 | CALTEX STAR SHOP LILLI PILLI | 48.63 | 4.42 | X | X | |||||||||||
| Total Purchases and ITCs as per spread sheet | 1729.01 | 157.18 | ||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs as per BAS lodged | 30 | |||||||||||||||
| Total ITCs allowed by Tribunal | 0 | |||||||||||||||
ANNEXURE B
A
B
C
D
E
Tax Period
“Net amounts” on Company’s BAS[33]
Net amounts as assessed by Commissioner[34]
Revised net amounts as per Tribunal’s reasons
Tax Shortfall Amounts
(B-D)1/7/2005 to 30/9/2005
(908)
0
76 GST less 40 ITC = 36
944
1/10/2005 to 31/12/2005
(2,065)
0
0 GST less 57 ITC = (57)
2,008
1/1/2006 to 31/3/2006
(292)
113
750 GST less 284 ITC = 466
758
1/4/2006 to 30/6/2006
(155)
760
0 GST less 70 ITC = (70)
85
1/7/2006 to 30/9/2006
(255)
166
30 GST less 42 ITC = (12)
243
1/10/2006 to 31/12/2006
(11)
0
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
11
1/1/2007 to 31/3/2007
(182)
0
10 GST less 11 ITC = (1)
181
1/4/2007 to 30/6/2007
10
20
10 GST less 0 ITC = 10
0
1/7/2007 to 30/9/2007
0
36
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
0
1/10/2007 to 31/12/2007
0
90
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
0
1/1/2008 to 31/3/2008
(172)
0
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
172
1/4/2008 to 30/6/2008
(90)
53
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
90
1/7/2008 to 30/9/2008
(61)
0
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
61
1/10/2008 to 31/12/2008
(30)
0
0 GST less 0 ITC = 0
30
Totals
(4,211)
1,238
372
4,583
[33] T5-46 to 73
[34] T14-216
0
10
0