Holm and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by the taxpayer, Mr. Holm, seeking an extension of time to lodge objections against assessments for income years ending 30 June 1999 to 30 June 2019. Mr. Holm sought to claim a deduction of $2.00 per year for work-related text messages, based on the belief that this was an allowable deduction that had been omitted from ATO publications. The Commissioner of Taxation had previously refused Mr. Holm's request to amend his tax returns, as the request was made more than two years after the relevant notices of assessment. Mr. Holm subsequently lodged objections, requesting they be treated as if lodged within the prescribed timeframe.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant an extension of time for Mr. Holm to lodge his objections. This required the Tribunal to consider the circumstances and reasons for the delay, the merit of the proposed objections, and any potential prejudice to the parties. Mr. Holm argued that his delay was due to misleading omissions in ATO publications, which led him to believe he could not claim the deduction. He contended that he acted promptly upon learning of the potential deduction from a social acquaintance and subsequent advice from an ATO officer.

The Tribunal found that while Mr. Holm's delay was significant, the reasons provided did not sufficiently justify granting an extension. The Tribunal noted that Mr. Holm had not demonstrated a strong prospect of success for his objections, particularly in light of the substantiation requirements for work-related expenses and the limited quantum of the deduction sought. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the expenditure of public resources in pursuing such a small claim, where the taxpayer had not actively pursued the matter for many years, weighed against granting the extension, drawing a parallel with the reasoning in *Bird v Commissioner of Taxation*.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decisions to refuse Mr. Holm's applications for extensions of time to lodge objections. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances concerning the delay, the strength of the objections, potential prejudice, and other considerations consistently weighed against granting an extension of time for any of the relevant income years.