Gu and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

[2017] AATA 906

Gu and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2017] AATA 906 (6 June 2017)

DivisionTAXATION AND COMMERICAL DIVISION     

File Number            2015/6881

ReMin Zhen Gu

APPLICANT

Commissioner of TaxationAnd  

RESPONDENT

DECISION

TribunalEgon Fice, Senior Member 

Date6 June 2017

PlaceMelbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.....................................[sgd]...................................

Egon Fice, Senior Member 

TAXATION - review of objection decision - income tax assessment - where audit disclosed applicant had undisclosed income - whether applicant can establish that assessment is excessive or otherwise incorrect - where applicant operated and was paid by business - where business traded substantially in cash - where applicant unable to provide satisfactory evidence to dispute assessed income - decision affirmed

TAXATION - penalties - administrative penalties - whether applicant’s taxation shortfall arose due to recklessness by applicant - where applicant was not assisted by a tax agent - penalties correctly imposed - no basis for remission of penalties for any other reason contended - decision affirmed

Legislation

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s. 264
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ss. 14ZZK, sch 1 ss. 284-75, 284-90, 298-20

Cases
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Dalco (1990) 168 CLR 614; [1990] HCA 3
George v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1952) 86 CLR 183; [1952] HCA 21

Gauci v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 135 CLR 81; [1975] HCA 54

Secondary Materials

Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT2008/1, Penalty relating to statements: meaning of reasonable care, recklessness and intentional disregard

REASONS FOR DECISION

Egon Fice, Senior Member

6 June 2017

1. In his 2013 income year tax return, Mr Gu described his main salary and wage occupation as a shop manager.  He returned salary and wages in the amount of $20,800.  That income was derived from a related entity, M & M Gu Pty Ltd, which operated a small cafe business.  He did not disclose any other income from any source.

2. In a letter from the ATO dated 31 March 2014, Mr Gu received notice that his tax affairs were to be audited.  The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) issued an interim audit report regarding M & M Gu Pty Ltd on 28 November 2014. The audit disclosed that the company failed to identify all of its income in the 2013 income year.  This finding was based on an examination of the company’s bank accounts as well as a number of accounts held by Mr Gu.

3. In particular, the audit disclosed regular cash deposits into Mr Gu’s personal accounts totalling some $608,700.26 for that income year.  The audit also found that Mr Gu owned a number of residential properties from which he received rent.  None of that rent had been disclosed as income.

4. On 6 May 2015 the ATO issued a report on completion of Mr Gu’s audit.  It found that Mr Gu had an additional income tax liability of $57,532.99.  The ATO also found Mr Gu was liable to an administrative penalty in the amount of $28,766.49.  The Commissioner issued an amended assessment for the 2013 income year on 14 May 2015 in which Mr Gu's amended taxable income was raised from $20,450 to $139,275.  In addition, on 14 May 2015 the Commissioner issued Mr Gu with a Notice of assessment of shortfall penalty.  The amount of penalty payable was said to be $28,766.45.

5. On 30 August 2015 Mr Gu lodged an objection to the assessment with the ATO.  On 18 September 2015 the Commissioner requested further documentation in support of Mr Gu’s objection.

6. In a letter dated 22 October 2015 the Commissioner sent to Mr Gu a Notice of Objection Decisions.  The Commissioner disallowed Mr Gu’s objection to the amended assessment for the 2013 income year and also disallowed his objection against the administrative penalty.  On 24 December 2015 Mr Gu lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking a review of the Commissioner’s Objection Decision.

7. The issues which I am required to determine are whether:

   (a)Mr Gu derived assessable income of at least $147,158 for the 2013 income year;

   (b)Mr Gu is liable to an administrative penalty of $28,766.45 for making a false or misleading statement; and

   (c)the administrative penalty imposed by the Commissioner should be remitted.

   ONUS OF PROOF

8. As the Commissioner correctly submitted, Mr Gu bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the assessment made by the Commissioner was excessive or otherwise incorrect and what the correct assessment should have been. Section 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (the Administration Act) provides:

   On an application for review of the reviewable objection decision:

   (a)the applicant is, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, limited to the grounds stated in the taxation objection to which the decision relates; and

   (b)the applicant has the burden of proving:

   (i)     if the taxation decision concerned is an assessment – that the assessment is excessive or otherwise incorrect and what the assessment should have been; or

   (ii)    in any other case – that the taxation decision concerned should not have been made or should have been made differently.

9. It is important to understand that the Commissioner may make his assessment using both direct and indirect means.  On the hearing of an application made by a taxpayer seeking review of the Commissioner’s Objection Decision, the Commissioner is not required to prove that his assessment was correct.

10. The High Court of Australia (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) dealt with this issue in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Dalco (1990) 168 CLR 614; [1990] HCA 3. Toohey J said, at 631:

    … A taxpayer does not necessarily discharge the onus of showing that an assessment is excessive, merely by showing that monies treated by the Commissioner as income are in truth not the income of the taxpayer, though that may be a step in demonstrating his or her taxable income to be less than the assessment…

11. Furthermore, I should refer to what Brennan J said in Dalco about reliance on an error made by the Commissioner. His Honour said, at 625:

    The majority of the Full Federal Court in the present case treated the error which they held to infect the Commissioner’s assessment of the amount of the taxpayer’s taxable income as concluding the question whether that amount was excessive.  It did not.  If this were a case where all the material facts were known and the amount of taxable income depended on the legal complexion of those facts, the taxpayer would succeed upon establishing that the Commissioner erroneously included in the assessable income an amount which, on those facts, ought not have to have been included.  But where, as here, the taxpayer has not proved that his actual taxable income is less than the amount assessed, the Court does not know all the material facts and it cannot find that the amount assessed is wrong.  A taxpayer who shows on the facts that are known a mere error by the Commissioner in assessing the amount of the taxpayer’s taxable income does not show that his objection should have been allowed or that the appeal against the assessment must be allowed… Unless the amount of the assessment is found to be excessive in the sense of being greater than the taxable income on which tax ought to have been levied, the taxpayer fails on his appeal.

12. The Commissioner has no obligation to establish a positive case supporting his assessment.  The High Court of Australia (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Webb Fullagar JJ) in George v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1952) 86 CLR 183; [1952] HCA 21 said, when considering equivalent provisions which have subsequently been repealed, at 204:

    The fact is that unless the taxpayer discharges the burden laid on him by s. 190 (b) of proving that his ascertainment or judgement is excessive, he cannot succeed and it can be no part of the duty of the Commissioner to establish affirmatively what judgement he formed, much less the grounds of it, and even less still the truth of the facts affording the grounds.

13. Brennan J also referred to what Mason J said in Gauci v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 135 CLR 81; [1975] HCA 54:

    The Act does not place any onus on the Commissioner to show that the assessments were correctly made.  Nor is there any statutory requirement that the assessment should be sustained or supported by evidence.  The implication of such a requirement would be inconsistent with s. 190 (b) for it is a consequence of that provision that unless the appellant shows by evidence that the assessment is incorrect, it will prevail.…

14. Given the above, it should be abundantly clear that Mr Gu cannot simply point to reasons why he disagrees with the Commissioner’s Objection Decision.  He needs to go much further.  He must establish, by evidence, that the assessment was excessive and what the assessment should have been.

    MR GU’S ASSESSABLE INCOME IN THE 2013 INCOME YEAR

15. Mr Gu was the sole director and secretary of M and M Gu Pty Ltd.  He was also the sole shareholder of that company.  The company operated a cafe known as Brunos Coffee Lounge at Moonee Ponds.  A winding up order was made by the Federal Court of Australia in January 2016 in respect of M and M Gu Pty Ltd, and a liquidator appointed.

16. Be that as it may, in the 2013 income year the cafe was operational.  In its annual GST return for the 2013 income year the cafe recorded total sales of $84,896.  The GST on those sales amounted to $7,717.  Audit of the company records by the ATO recorded that it had one bank account with the National Australia Bank (NAB).  The auditor recorded that the total deposits to that company bank account amounted to $1,315.40 in the 2013 financial year. 

17. The reason for the disparity between the company’s net income and deposits in its bank account was explained by Mr Gu at the hearing in the course of his cross-examination.  Essentially, the sales made at the cafe were on a cash basis.  That cash was not regularly put into the company’s bank account.  The money used to pay for supplies purchased by the cafe was taken from the till.  At the audit of the company, Mr Gu provided handwritten statements where he recorded the daily takings at the cafe.  Those takings were for the period 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2013.  Mr Gu did not provide cash register tapes for the audit period.  He also recorded cash paid for supplies acquired by the cafe.

18. The ATO auditor also issued notices under s. 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) to a number of banks requiring them to produce bank accounts in the name of Mr Gu.  Westpac identified three bank accounts in Mr Gu’s name and the ANZ bank identified two accounts.  Two of those accounts, one from Westpac and the other from the ANZ were loan accounts indicating Mr Gu had at least two mortgages. 

19. Further enquiries identified Mr Gu as the registered proprietor of a property at 2 Angler Parade, Ascot Vale and a second property at 251/100 Kavanagh Street, Southbank.  Title searches revealed Mr Gu to be the registered proprietor of the Angler Parade property.  He was also the registered proprietor of the Kavanagh Street property until 14 April 2014 when he transferred it (by gift) to his wife, Hui Min Zhang.  At the audit interview, Mr Gu denied that he had a mortgage over any additional properties.

20. According to the company interim audit report, at the initial interview, Mr Gu denied he had any mortgages.  In the course of his cross-examination however, Mr Gu admitted he was the owner of both properties.  He also admitted that he received rental payments which he had not declared as income in his income tax reports saying simply: my mistake.

21. The Commissioner noted that Mr Gu’s personal bank accounts received cash deposits between $1000 and $2300 every 3 to 4 days during the 2013 income year.  The interim audit report for the company disclosed cash deposits in each of the accounts in Mr Gu’s name for the 2013 income year totalling $608,700.26.  Some of those deposits had the notation 2 Angler Pde and Melbourne inner Kava 1200/251, indicating rental income.  The total of those deposits for the 2013 income year amounted to $26,646.60.

22. On completion of the company audit which is reported by the ATO in a letter dated 6 January 2015, the Commissioner determined that the additional GST liability of the company for the 2012 and 2013 income years was $34,279.  That resulted from amended company income in the 2013 income year of $286,645.

23. On completion of Mr Gu’s audit, the ATO determined that:

    (a)Mr Gu’s total income (reported and unreported) amounted to $120,512;

    (b)Mr Gu had additional rental income which had not been declared in the amount of $26,646;

    (c)he should be allowed rental deductions amounting to $7,533.28;

    (d)Mr Gu’s amended taxable income was $139,275;

    (e)as a consequence, Mr Gu’s was liable for a Higher Education loan and student financial supplement scheme in the amount $13,876; and

    (f)Mr Gu’s tax shortfall amounted to $57,532.99.

24. The unreported income from the cafe business was calculated by the Commissioner in the following way:

Total deposits to Mr Gu’s Personal Accounts	$306,497
PLUS	Cash paid for café purchases	$5,479
Deposits into business bank account	$1,315
LESS	Deposits noted as rental income	$26,646
Reported business income	$84,896
SUB-TOTAL	$201,749
LESS	GST on the net amount	$18,341
Business expenses	$62,896
Declared income	$20,800
TOTAL	$99,712

1. Mr Gu’s total assessable income from the business was therefore $99,712 + $20,800 (declared income) resulting in a total amount of $120,512.  When the rental income is added to that figure, it results in an assessable income attributable to Mr Gu of $147,158.

2. Mr Gu rejected that analysis, contending that his parents, Zuo Lian Gu and Ya Qin Gu, travelled to Australia from China on 21 August 2012, each bringing with them $70,000 in cash.  In fact Mr Gu produced two statutory declarations, one from each parent, in which that was stated to have occurred.  Those documents were admitted into evidence.  However, despite the number of requests made by the Commissioner between 4 July 2016 and 24 October that Mr Gu’s parents attend the hearing to give evidence, they were not present at the hearing of this matter and not available for cross-examination.  The various letters sent to Mr Gu by the Commissioner were also taken into evidence.

3. I made it clear to Mr Gu on the hearing of this matter, that unless the documents I had in evidence supported the Statutory Declarations made by his parents, those Declarations would carry very little weight in support of his claim.  As Mr G Redenbach of counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Commissioner, submitted, the objective evidence before me did not support the Statutory Declarations made by Mr Gu’s parents.

4. I had in evidence movement details provided by, I assume, Customs and Border Protection, setting out the arrivals into Australia and departure from Australia of Mr Gu’s parents.  In the income year in question, they did arrive in Australia on 22 August 2012 and departed 7 March 2013.  On both incoming passenger cards on that flight, the parents answered No to the question asking them whether they were bringing into Australia AUD$10,000 or more in Australian or foreign currency equivalent.  Therefore, if as they claimed they had each brought in $70,000 in currency, they both committed a serious offence.  Without more evidence, I am not prepared to make such an assumption.

5. According to Mr Gu, he has a brother in Shanghai who intends to migrate to Australia or have his children come to Australia to study.  He said his brother wished to invest in property in Melbourne.  Mr Gu claimed that when the exchange rate between the Chinese Yuan and the Australian dollar was favourable, the Chinese currency was exchanged for Australian currency and brought to Australia by his parents as a gift. 

6. Mr Gu attached to that statement a number of foreign exchange statements from the Bank of China.  The Commissioner had those statements translated into English by a NAATI accredited translator.  They disclose significant sums of Chinese currency being used to purchase Australian dollars between 1 July 2009 and 4 March 2010.  The amounts are significant being $62,800, $62,885.17, $49,000, $24,000, $15,000, $55,500 and $55,200. That is a total of $324,385.17.

7. I also had in evidence an Austrac summary report dealing with outgoing and incoming electronic international funds transfers.  Those transactions listed above did not involve physical transfer of cash and two of them are recorded as being electronic.  Those funds were transferred to Australia from China for the benefit of Mr Gu via his Westpac accounts.  However the Austrac record also records $100,000 being electronically transferred from Australia to China on 22 June 2011.  As the Commission observed, those transactions occurred outside the 2013 income year.

8. The only two incoming transactions which occurred in the 2013 income year were on 24 August 2012 and 20 February 2013.  The first transaction was a cash deposit made by Mr Gu into his Westpac account in the sum of $32,200.  The source of those funds is unknown.  The second transaction was an electronic funds transfer of $18,000 into Mr Gu’s Westpac account.

9. In coming to the conclusion regarding Mr Gu’s assessable income in the 2013 income year, the ATO excluded the cash deposit of $32,200 into Mr Gu’s Westpac account on 24 August 2012.  The ATO accepted that deposit arose from a gift.  Furthermore, it is sufficiently clear that monies were frequently transferred between accounts by Mr Gu.  To avoid duplication, the ATO was careful to exclude the transfer transactions it was able to identify.

10. Given the above evidence, I find that Mr Gu has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Commissioner’s assessment of his taxation liability for the 2013 income year was excessive.  While it is entirely possible that the Commissioner’s assessment may not be perfectly accurate, it is a reasonable calculation based on the evidentiary material.  Because Mr Gu conducted many cash transactions and, according to him, retained cash proceeds from the business of the company, it is only Mr Gu’s evidence which can displace the findings made by the ATO.  Despite understanding that was the case, Mr Gu has nevertheless failed to provide a satisfactory evidence based explanation.  Plainly, as the ATO explained in its interim and final audit report, Mr Gu failed to properly maintain business records as he was required to do in order to substantiate the business and his personal taxation liability.  It is therefore appropriate that the consequences of that failure be visited upon him.

    ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY

    Whether Mr Gu is liable to an administrative penalty

11. Section 284-75 of the Administration Act relevantly provides:

    (1)  you are liable to an administrative penalty if:

    (a)you make a statement to the Commission or to an entity that is exercising powers or performing functions under a *taxation Law (other than the *Exercise Acts); and

    (b)the statement is false or misleading in a material particular, whether because of things in it or omitted from it.

    …

    (5) You are not liable to administrative penalty under subsection (1) or (4) for a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular if you, and your*agent (if relevant), took reasonable care in connection with the making of this statement.

    (6) You are not liable to administrative penalty under subsection (1) or (4) if:

    (a)you engage a *registered tax agent or BAS agent; and

    (b)you give the registered tax agent or BAS agent all relevant taxation information; and

    (c)the registered tax agent or BAS agent makes the statement; and

    (d)the false or misleading nature of the statement did not result from:

    (i)     intentional disregard by the registered tax agent or BAS agent of a *taxation Law (other than the *Excise Acts); or

    (ii)    recklessness by the agent as to the operation of the taxation Law (other than the Excise Acts).

1. At the outset I should mention that s. 284-75 (6) does not apply to Mr Gu because he did not use a registered tax agent or BAS agent to prepare his taxation returns.

2. Given the findings I have made regarding Mr Gu’s taxation liabilities in the 2013 income year, there can be no doubt that false or misleading statements were made by Mr Gu in the income tax return lodged for that income year.

3. The Commissioner explained the expression reasonable care in his Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT 2008/1.  At paragraphs 28 – 29, the expression is explained in the following way:

   The reasonable care test requires an entity to take the same care in fulfilling their tax obligations that could be expected of a reasonable ordinary person in their position.  This means that even though the standard of care is measured objectively, it takes into account the circumstances of the taxpayer.  This aspect of the test is addressed in the Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill (No. 2) 2000 where it states at paragraph 1.69:

   Reasonable care requires taxpayer to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the ITAA and regulations.  The effort required is one commensurate with all the taxpayer’s circumstances, including the taxpayer’s knowledge, education, experience and skill.

   Judging whether there has been a failure to take reasonable care turns on an evaluation of all the circumstances surrounding the making of the false or misleading statement to determine whether a reasonable person of ordinary prudence in the same circumstances would have exercised greater care.

4. In Mr Gu’s case, it is clear that he did not keep proper business records nor was there any evidence that he kept cash register tapes for the transactions conducted by the cafe.  He claimed he did but these were never produced.  Furthermore, the problem was exacerbated by reason of most transactions being conducted in cash.  In those circumstances, a prudent person conducting a small business would keep all relevant documentary evidence of transactions and expenditures.  Mr Gu operated that business for at least 15 years and must therefore have been aware of the possibility of an audit by the ATO and the need to be able to substantiate all business transactions.

5. In addition, Mr Gu did not return rental income he received from both properties and which were paid into bank accounts in his name.  He claimed that was a mistake.  Having been involved in small business for some time, I seriously doubt it was simply a mistake.  If Mr Gu had any doubt about that, a simple enquiry with the ATO would have cleared that issue immediately.

6. There was also the explanation that monies were transferred from China on behalf of his brother for the purpose of investing in residential properties in Australia.  There was further evidence that Mr Gu’s parents brought in significant amounts of cash without declaring that money after arriving in Australia.  In fact their inbound passenger card details clearly said that was not the case.  The evidence regarding those transfers and the bringing into Australia of cash without it being declared creates significant difficulties for Mr Gu, not only from a tax perspective.

7. Quite plainly, the evidence regarding the transfer of monies from and back to China and the investment in properties in Australia was less than satisfactory.  In those circumstances, I find that Mr Gu did not take reasonable care in submitting his 2013 income tax return.  He is therefore liable to an administrative penalty.

8. Section 284-90 of the Administration Act sets out the base penalty amounts. They are calculated on a percentage basis of the shortfall amount. The Commissioner determined that the correct base penalty rate in Mr Gu’s case was 50% of the shortfall amount. That assessment is based on Item 2 in the table under s. 284-90 of the Administration Act which provides:

   The base penalty amount under this Subdivision is worked out using this table and section 284-224 if relevant:

Base penalty amount
Item	In this situation:	The base penalty amount is:
… 4 …	You have a * shortfall amount as a result of a statement described in subsection 284-75(1) or (4) and the amount, or part of the amount, resulted from recklessness by you or your agent as to the operation of a * taxation law (other than the * Excise Acts)	50% of your *shortfall amount or part

1. The meaning of recklessness as to the operation of a taxation law is explained in

   
   

   MT 2008/1.  At paragraph 102, the Taxation Ruling states:

   Recklessness assumes that the behaviour in question shows disregard of or indifference to a risk that is foreseeable by a reasonable person.  The Full Federal Court in R v FC of T (2003) 131 FCR 2003; [2003] FCAFC 105 (Hart) at paragraphs 33 and 34 endorsed the following comments of Cooper J in BRK (Bris) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2001] FCA 164; 2001 ATC 4111; (2001) 46 ATR 347 (BRK) at paragraph 77:

   Recklessness in this context means to include in a tax assessment material upon which the Act or regulations are to operate, knowing that there is a real, as opposed to a fanciful risk that the material may be incorrect, or be grossly indifferent as to whether or not the material is true and correct, and a reasonable person in the position of the statement-maker would see there was a real risk that the Act and regulations may not operate correctly to lead to the assessment of the proper tax payable because of the content of the tax statement.  So understood the proscribed conduct is more than mere negligence and must amount to gross carelessness.

2. I find that Mr Gu’s conduct in completing his 2013 income tax return was reckless.  He was aware that rental income was being derived from investment properties but attempted to deny that he had a mortgage when interviewed on audit.  Having been a small business operator for many years prior to that income year, I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr Gu was aware of the need to disclose that income in his income tax return.  In addition, Mr Gu operated his business essentially on a cash basis, ignoring the need to maintain proper business records. 

3. Furthermore, on the hearing of this matter, Mr Gu was unable to substantiate the basis on which a number of large cash transfers came into his accounts from China, ostensibly on behalf of his brother.  He had two Statutory Declarations from his parents regarding the bringing of cash into Australia from China but, despite being warned about the consequences if his parents were not available to be cross examined either in person or by telephone, declined to do so.  A 50% penalty was appropriate in his circumstances.

   Whether the administrative penalty should be remitted

4. Section 298-20 of the Administration Act provides:

   Remission of penalty   

   (1)  The Commissioner may remit all or a part of the penalty.

   (2)  If the Commissioner decides:

   (a)not to remit the penalty; or

   (b)to remit only part of the penalty;

   the Commissioner must give written notice of the decision and the reasons for the decision to the entity.

5. I had no evidence before me for forming a view that the administrative penalty should be remitted either in full or in part.  Accordingly I find that a remittal is inappropriate.

6. In his Objection Decision, the Commissioner also referred to the shortfall interest charge applicable to the shortfall assessed, although that did not form part of Mr Gu’s objection.  Mr Gu did not present any evidence regarding this issue and accordingly, there are no grounds apparent to me upon which to base a decision regarding the shortfall interest charge.

   CONCLUSION

7. I have found that Mr Gu has failed to discharge the onus of proving that his income tax liability for the 2013 income year was excessive.  I have also found that the Commissioner’s assessment of Mr Gu’s additional income tax liability ($57,532.99) was a reasonable estimation of that liability.

8. I have found that Mr Gu is liable to an administrative penalty because he failed to take reasonable care in providing the information contained in his income tax return for the 2013 income year.  That information was false and misleading.  In making the statements he did on his income tax return, I have found that Mr Gu was aware of the risk he was taking in making those statements, being aware that it was unlikely that the statements regarding his assessable income were correct and knowing that he had failed to include rental income.  The appropriate base penalty was that for recklessness, which is 50% of the shortfall amount.

9. I had no evidence before me on which to make any findings regarding the possible remission of the administrative penalty or the shortfall interest charge.

10. I find that the Objection Decision made by the Commissioner on 22 October 2015 was correct.  I affirm that decision.

I certify that the preceding 53 (fifty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Egon Fice, Senior Member

.....................................[sgd]...................................

Associate

Dated: 6 June 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	7 November 2016
Applicant:	In person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G Redenbach
Solicitors for the Respondent:	ATO Dispute Resolution