Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Integrated Construction Equipment Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] NSWCATAD 131 Hearing dates: 13 May 2019 Date of orders: 05 July 2019 Decision date: 05 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: AR Boxall, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed.
Catchwords: Payroll tax – joint and several liability – grouping – single director company – exercise of voting power at directors’ meetings – body corporate Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, ss 58, 63
Corporations Act 2001 (Cwth), s119
Payroll Tax Act 2007 ss 6, 7, 8, 9,
68, 69, 72, 74, 81
Taxation Administration Act 1996 ss 4, 45, 71, 72, 96, 100Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
B&L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2008) 74 NSWLR 481
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 387
East v Bennett Brothers [1911] 1 Ch D 163
In the matter of Climbform Australia Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1977
Re Hastings Deering (1985) 9 ACLR 755
Sharpe v Dawes [1876] 2 QBD 26Texts Cited: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition Category: Principal judgment Parties: Integrated Construction Equipment Pty Limited (Applicant)
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent)Representation: A Fenwick, Director, acting as agent (Applicant)
Solicitors:
S Richardson (Respondent)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00015810 Publication restriction: None
*
reasons for decision
Introduction
-
In this application the Applicant seeks the review of a decision made by the Respondent on 12 July 2018 in which he issued to the Applicant Payroll Tax Assessment Notices for the financial years 2014 and 2015. The assessments are individually referred to as, respectively, the 2014 Assessment and the 2015 Assessment, and collectively as the Assessments.
-
In these reasons:
References to the Section 58 Documents are to the bundle of documents filed by the Respondent with the Tribunal on 27 February 2019 pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADRA); and
References to particular pages of the Section 58 Documents are to the corresponding numbered pages in that bundle.
-
The 2014 Assessment[1] assessed the Applicant with the following taxation (or taxation related) liabilities in relation to the financial year 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014:
1. Section 58 Documents, pp78-80
Description of liability
$
Payroll tax
68,391.74
Interest as at 12 July 2018
5,661.63
Penalty tax
13,678.35
Interest on penalty tax
0.00
Total
87,731.72
-
The 2015 Assessment[2] assessed the Applicant with the following taxation (or taxation related) liabilities in relation to the financial year 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015:
2. Section 58 Documents, pp81-84
Description of liability
$
Payroll tax
40,657.37
Interest as at 12 July 2018
2,318.24
Penalty tax
8,131.47
Interest on penalty tax
0.00
Total
51,107.08
-
The Assessments were based, in whole or in part, on:
a determination by the Respondent that the Applicant was under section…
Continue reading Integrated Construction Equipment Pty Ltd v Chief Commission...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Integrated Construction Equipment Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] NSWCATAD 131
- Case
- [2019] NSWCATAD 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around whether ICE was liable for payroll tax under the grouping provisions of the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Vic) and whether ICE could be held jointly and severally liable for the unpaid tax. The court had to determine whether ICE, despite being a single director company, could be considered a body corporate that exercised voting power at directors’ meetings. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the Commissioner's grouping determination was valid.
The Supreme Court found that ICE was indeed a body corporate that exercised voting power at directors' meetings, despite being a single director company. The court held that ICE could be considered a member of a group for the purposes of the grouping provisions. The court reasoned that the exercise of voting power, even by a single director, constituted a form of corporate decision-making that aligned with the statutory definition. Consequently, the grouping determination by the Commissioner was upheld. Given the findings, ICE was held jointly and severally liable for the unpaid payroll tax as part of the grouped entities.
The final orders were that the Commissioner's determination that ICE was liable for the unpaid payroll tax, including the imposition of joint and several liability, was upheld. ICE was required to pay the outstanding payroll tax along with interest and penalties as determined by the Commissioner.
Orders
Orders of the court
10.
is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.