Hartley and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

[2020] AATA 1260

Hartley and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2020] AATA 1260 (11 May 2020)

Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION

File Numbers:         2019/7503-9

Re:Todd Andrew Hartley

APPLICANT

AndCommissioner of Taxation

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member R Olding

Date:11 May 2020

Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal DIRECTS:

1.If the Applicant wishes to have the programming directions made on 31 March 2020 vacated, the Applicant must file in the Tribunal and copy to the Respondent a written submission stating the period for which the Applicant wishes to have the application for review in abeyance and why, and any evidence in support of the submission, by 5-00 pm on 25 May 2020.

2.If the Applicant files and serves a submission in accordance with Direction 1, the Respondent must advise the Tribunal and the Applicant in writing by 5-00 pm on 8 June 2020 whether the Respondent opposes the course requested by the Applicant and, if so, why.

.................................[SGD].......................................

Senior Member R Olding

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE  – where applicant sought an “abeyance” for an indeterminate period – where applicant made unsupported assertions of spying and other allegations against the respondent – where the applicant persisted in using obscene language in communications with tribunal staff contrary to a direction of the tribunal – where applicant otherwise non-compliant with directions - whether to dismiss the application without proceeding to review the reviewable decision

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 2A, 33(1A), 42A, 63(2)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member R Olding

11 May 2020

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant applied for review of a taxation objection decision.  With the agreement of the parties, I made standard programming directions on 31 March 2020 requiring the Applicant to file and serve a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions and any witness statements and other evidence by 8 May 2020; for the Respondent to do likewise by 19 June 2020; and for a further telephone directions hearing to take place on  29 June 2020.

2. On 1 May 2020, the Applicant emailed the Tribunal’s registry as follows:

   “Effective immediately i (sic) request an abeyance of the matter 2019/7503. There is a prima facie case of the Australian Taxation Office spying on me and or tracing my email program.

   I will be making a formal complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner specific to my belief my privacy and that of others has been breached.”

3. Under s 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”), the Tribunal is under a statutory obligation to, amongst other things, conduct reviews in a way that is “fair, just, economical, informal and quick”.  Each party to Tribunal proceedings in turn is required by s 33(1A) to “use his or her best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to fulfil the objective in section 2A”.

4. I formed the view that, consistent with the Tribunal’s statutory duty, it would not be appropriate to agree to an application - unsupported by any evidence or any submission as to any alleged connection between the Applicant’s allegations and the application for review - for an “abeyance” for an unspecified and indeterminate time.  Accordingly, I made directions on 6 May 2020 refusing the request but giving the Applicant until close of business on 12 May 2020 to advise whether he wishes to continue with his application for review.

5. The Applicant’s email of 1 May 2020 also contained obscene language and comments to which it is quite inappropriate for Tribunal staff to be exposed.  I therefore included a further direction that the Applicant refrain from using obscene language in emails or other communications with the Tribunal registry.

6. The Applicant sent a further email to the registry on 7 May 2020 stating:

   “I will not be adhering to the 12 May 2020 deadline request until you provide good reason why the request for abeyance was denied.”

7. No doubt reflecting the range of demands on the Tribunal’s limited resources; that the Tribunal’s services come with a considerable cost to the community; and that time spent on one matter is time not spent advancing the legitimate interests of the multitude of other persons with matters before the Tribunal, the AAT Act does not require the Tribunal to provide reasons for directions. However, it may choose to do so and with hindsight perhaps that may have been an appropriate course in this matter.

8. Of course, parties may request that the Tribunal provide reasons. However, a demanding tirade of abuse as the Applicant’s email of 7 May 2020 can only be described, and contrary to the direction of 6 May 2020 containing further obscenities this time apparently directed both to Tribunal staff and me, is not acceptable conduct.

9. The Applicant’s conduct may constitute contempt of the Tribunal which, under s 63(2) of the AAT Act, is punishable upon conviction by up to 12 months’ imprisonment or 60 penalty units or both. Additionally, since the Applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions, the Tribunal may, under s 42A of the AAT Act, dismiss his application for review without proceeding to review the objection decision.

10. However, rather than consider those matters further at this point and taking into account that there may be relevant context to the Applicant’s communications of which I am unaware, I have decided to give the Applicant an opportunity to reflect upon his past and future conduct in this matter.  If the Applicant wishes to make an application to vacate the previous programming directions for a specified period, supported by short, relevant submissions and any relevant evidence, I will consider it. If not, I will consider submissions from the parties on whether the application for review should be dismissed or further directions made to prepare it for hearing.

I certify that the preceding 10 (ten) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Olding

..................................[SGD]......................................

Associate

Dated: 11 May 2020