JBKR and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

JBKR and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2019] AATA 38 (18 January 2019)
Division:TAXATION & COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/5429
Re:JBKR
APPLICANT

AndCommissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D K Grigg
Date:18 January 2019
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.....................[SGD]..............................
Member D K Grigg
CATCHWORDS
TAX – whether default income tax assessment is excessive –– decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D K Grigg
18 January 2019

This matter concerns the issuance of a default income tax assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation (“Commissioner”) due to the failure of the Applicant to lodge an income tax return for the year ended 30 June 2012.
BACKGROUND
During the year ended 30 June 2012, the Applicant was a Managing Director of a “Company”.[1]
[1] The name of the Company is not referred to by virtue of a confidentiality order.
On 27 August 2012, the Company lodged an annual payment summary for the financial year ended 30 June 2012, in regards to the Applicant (the “Payment Summary”) indicating that the Company had made gross payments to the Applicant of $436,918.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T3, pages 15 – 19, ATO default assessment for the year ended 30 June 2012 dated 10 March 2017
By 10 March 2017, the Applicant had not provided his income tax return for the 2012 financial year. As a result the Australian Tax Office (“ATO”) lodged an income tax return as a default assessment of the Applicant’s for the year ended 30 June 2012. Pursuant to the default assessment the ATO determined that the Applicant had taxable income of $436,918.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, page 21, Notice of assessment dated 17 March 2017.
The ATO issued the Applicant with a notice of assessment for the year ended
[4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, page 21, Notice of assessment dated 17 March 2017.
[5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, page 21, Notice of assessment dated 17 March 2017.
30 June 2012.[4] Pursuant to the notice of assessment the Applicant’s assessed tax payable was $170,163.10 and the balance of tax owing to the ATO, after taking into account the Medicare levy and deducting pay-as-you-go withholding tax credits (“PAYG”), was $71,465.20.[5]
The ATO’s assessment of the Applicant’s taxable income was based on a PAYG Payment Summary for the year ended 30 June 2012 provided by the Company. The Payment Summary provided that during the 2012 financial year the Company had made gross payments to the Applicant of $436,918 and withheld tax totally $113,240.[6]
[6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 31, PAYG summary prepared bv t for the year ended 30 June 2012.
The ATO also issued the Applicant with a penalty of $53,598.75 for his failure to lodge his income tax return on time (“FLT Penalty”) and interest of $36,550.63 based on the additional tax owed.[7]
[7] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, page 9, Reasons for decision dated 11 July 2017; Administrative penalties are imposed pursuant to section 284 – 75(3) of Schedule One of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (“the Act”) where a person has failed to provide a return, notice or other document as required, and that document was necessary to determine a person’s tax related liability accurately, and as a result the ATO has had to determine the person’s tax related liability without the document. In those circumstances a base penalty amount of 75% of the tax related liability is imposed: Section 284-90, Schedule One of the Taxation Administration Act 1953; Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 26, Objection form – for tax professionals dated 7 April 2017
On 7 April 2017, the Applicant lodged an objection to the default assessment and the imposition of the penalties and interest raised by the ATO.[8] The Applicant contended that the default assessment was excessive because he had only received gross payments in the amount of $261,918.3
[8] Exhibit 1, T documents, T5, pages 23 – 42, objection and supporting documents lodged 7 April 2017.
On 11 July 2017, the ATO advised the Applicant that they had considered his objection and had disallowed it. The ATO advised that it had spoken with the Applicant’s former employer who confirmed that the PAYG summary was correct and that the gross income paid to the Applicant had been contributed to by a bonus. As a result of the reconsideration the ATO agreed to reduce the penalty imposed from 75% of the tax shortfall to 0%.[9]
[9] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 9-14, Reasons for decision dated 11 July 2017.
On 9 September 2017, the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for review of the ATO’s decision.[10] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decisions under Tax Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (“the Act”) pursuant to section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and Part IVC of the Act.
[10] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1- 8, Application for review dated 9 September 2017.
Since lodging his application for review the Applicant raised additional grounds as to why he says the default assessment is excessive. The Applicant now contends that the assessment is excessive because:[11]
(a)his earnings were paid into an account from which he derived no benefit;
(b)the tax withheld by the Company was commensurate with the income he earned;
(c)he suffered a substantial capital loss in the 2012 financial year and this should be used to offset any taxable income earned; and
(d)he was not an Australian resident in 2014 and therefore was not obligated to pay tax.
[11] Exhibit 5, Submissions from the Applicant dated 10 September 2018.
ISSUE FOR THE TRIBUNAL
The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the Commissioner’s default tax assessment for the financial year ended 30 June 2012 is excessive.
The amount of income earned by the Applicant from the Company in 2012 is in dispute.
INCOME EARNED BY THE APPLICANT DURING 2012
Material Evidence before the Tribunal
At the beginning of the hearing the Applicant said he had not received a copy of the section 37 documents (“T Documents”). The material contained within those bundles was all information the Applicant had previously seen or had copies. The Applicant was asked if he was able to proceed without having that material in front of him. Mr Dekkers said he had emailed the material to the Applicant numerous times and there was no indication that the material had not been sent or received. The Applicant did receive Mr Dekkers’ submissions via the same email address. I explained to the Applicant that the material before the Tribunal in the T Documents was material he had previously seen. It included his application for review, the ATO’s reasons for decisions, his notice of objection, and email correspondence between himself and the ATO. After each document was identified for the Applicant he finally agreed that he had seen the material before and was able to continue with the hearing.
The Applicant also claimed that he had not received the supplementary T Documents, which contained miscellaneous documents such as Annual Reports from the Applicant’s previous employer. Mr Dekkers said this material was sent to the Applicant via his nominated email address on a number of occasions in two parts. Mr Dekkers told the Tribunal he would not need to rely on that material so it was not admitted into evidence.
A further document tendered by the Commissioner was an email from a representative from the Company, to Mr Dekkers on 26 June 2018. The representative writes that he went through the accounting system of the Company for year ended 30 June 2012 and provided Mr Dekkers with a copy of:
(a)
a Premium Business Cheque Account statement of the Company for the period

11 June 2012 to 10 July 2012 (“Company Account”);
(b)a Company Reconciliation Report dated 19 June 2012; and
(c)a statement signed by the Applicant confirming the transactions he had had directly or indirectly with the Company for the year ended 30 June 2012 (“Disclosure Statement”).[12]
[12] Exhibit 3, Email from Company representative and attachments dated 26 June 2018.
The Applicant said he had not received the email from the representative of the Company nor attachments.
The Tribunal arranged for that email and the attachments to be emailed to the Applicant during the hearing and he was given time to consider it. The Applicant acknowledged that he received the material and had sufficient time to consider it.
Applicant’s Contentions
The Applicant contends that he only received $261,918 in the financial year ended
[13] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, page 7, Application for Review dated 9 September 2017.
30 June 2012 and not $436,918 as assessed by the ATO.[13] The Applicant told the Tribunal that monies sent from Company which went into his former spouse’s account do not include anything above $261,918. When asked if that amount was what he contends was assessable income, he said that was all the information he had available to him.
At the hearing the Applicant was informed that pursuant to section 14ZZK(b) of the Act, the onus was on him to establish that the default assessment was excessive or otherwise incorrect and what the assessment should have been. I reminded him that his original objection to the Commissioner’s decision, where he was represented by his then accountant, was on the basis that his taxable income was $261,918. At that time the Applicant argued that the Payment Summary submitted by his former employer was incorrect and that he had not received a bonus of $175,000. When reminded of the grounds of his original objection the Applicant confirmed that this was still his contention.
The Applicant says the bank account records that he has differ from those asserted by the Company. This is because the Applicant disputes one of the transactions relied on by the Commissioner (discussed below).
Basis of the Commissioner’s Assessment
The Commissioner submits that the following amounts comprise the Applicant’s income for the year ended 30 June 2012:

Transaction
Date Gross
Amount PAYG Net
Amount Transaction References

12.09.2011 30,000 10,170 19,830 fls net dir fee6

13.03.2012 10,000 3,390 6,610 CBA FLS wage 10k gross7

14.06.2012 221,918 64,942 156,976
(1) [Company] unpaid fees8

(2) Dir back pmt9

15.06.2012 175,000 34,738 140,262
(1) Deposit Kylie10

(2) Bonus amend11

Total 436,918

CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL

The Commissioner relies on the following material in support of its contention that the Company paid the Applicant $436,918 in gross payments during the financial year ended 30 June 2012:
(a)the Payment Summary. The Payment Summary for 30 June 2012 provides that the gross payments made by the Company to the Applicant was $436,918 and that the total tax withheld was $113,240;[14]
(b)the Company Account statement for the period 11 June 2012 and 10 July 2012;[15] and
(c)a Reconciliation Report of the Company dated 19 June 2012.[16]
[14]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, page 54, PAYG Summary dated 13 July 2012.
[15]    Exhibit 3, Commonwealth Bank cheque account statement of the Company for the period 11 June 2012 and 10 July 2012.
[16]    Exhibit 3, Reconciliation Report of the Company dated 19 June 2012.
The Applicant relies on his Westpac Bank Accounts (“Westpac Account”). The Westpac Account was in the name of the Applicant and his former spouse. Copies of the Westpac Account statements for the relevant period were provided by the Applicant to the Commissioner in his original notice of objection.[17]
[17] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, pages 32-40, Westpac bank account statements.
The Westpac Account indicates that:
(a)on 12 September 2011, an amount of $19,830 was deposited. The description of the transaction was “fls net dir fee”.[18] Mr Dekkers for the Commissioner explained that this figure was net of PAYG and that PAYG totalling $10,170 was withheld by the Company on that date. The gross amount becomes the sum of the net amount received and the PAYG withheld and totals $30,000. Mr Dekkers identified for the Tribunal that the PAYG withholding amount was drawn from the Business Activity Statement of the Company. It was not in dispute by the Applicant that this amount was deposited into the Westpac Account by the Company and constitutes income;
(b)on 13 March 2012, an amount of $6,610 was deposited. The description of the transaction was “FLS wage 10k gross”.[19] Mr Dekkers for the Commissioner explained that this figure was net of PAYG and that PAYG totalling $3,390 was withheld by the Company on that date. The gross amount becomes the sum of the net amount received and the PAYG withheld and totals $10,000. Mr Dekkers identified for the Tribunal that the PAYG withholding amount was drawn from the Business Activity Statement of the Company. It was not in dispute by the Applicant that this amount was deposited into the Westpac Account by the Company and constitutes income; and
(c)on 14 June 2012, an amount of $156,976 was deposited. The description of the transaction was “[Company] L Dir unpaid fees”.[20] Mr Dekkers for the Commissioner explained that this figure was net of PAYG and that PAYG totalling $64,942 was withheld by the Company on that date. The gross amount becomes the sum of the net amount received and the PAYG withheld and totals $221,918. Mr Dekkers identified for the Tribunal that the PAYG withholding amount was drawn from the Business Activity Statement of the Company. It was not in dispute by the Applicant that this amount was deposited into the Westpac Account by the Company and constitutes income.
[18]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 38, Westpac bank account statements.
[19]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 34, Westpac bank account statements.
[20]    Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 41, Westpac bank account statements.
The three transactions identified in the paragraph above total gross payments made by the Company to the Applicant of $261,918. This is the amount that the Applicant accepts and submits is the correct assessable income amount.[21]
[21] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 26, the Applicant’s grounds of objection.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he was a secondary account holder of the Westpac Accounts and that the account was actually in his former spouse’s name. He says he did not ever receive any of the income deposited into this account by the Company. He accepts the amounts deposited constitute income but says he did not receive it.
The Applicant submits that he did not earn an additional $175,000.
The transaction in dispute is a deposit of $140,262 into the Westpac Account on
[22] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 41, Westpac bank account statements.
15 June 2012. The description of the transaction was “Kylie”.[22] The Commissioner submits that this was income paid by the Company to the Applicant and took the Tribunal to the corresponding entries in the Company’s Account. The Company’s Account indicates that on 15 June 2012 an amount of $287,035 was debited. The description of that transaction was “Bonus amend”. A review of the Reconciliation Account indicates that on 15 June 2012 three cleared cheques totalling $287,035 were drawn in the name of the Applicant and two others. The Reconciliation Report indicates that the amount drawn in the name of the Applicant was $140,262.
The Applicant said that his former spouse happened to transfer $140,262 from the United Kingdom (“UK”) to the Westpac Account on the same day and that money had nothing to do with the Company. However, there is no documentation to show that this transfer came from the UK. The Applicant says he cannot provide documents because they are all with his former spouse and the subject of Family Court proceedings. He said he could not comment on why that transfer occurred on the same day. The Applicant then went on to say that his main contention is that he never had the benefit of any money. The transaction is described in the Westpac Account statement as “Kylie”. The Tribunal finds that it is an unlikely coincidence that the exact amount reflected in the Company Account is the same as the amount deposited into the Westpac Account on the same day.
The Disclosure Statement is dated 11 September 2012 and was addressed to HLB Mann Judd Accountants in compliance with Australian Accounting Standard AASB 124.
AASB 124’s objective is:[23]
to ensure that an entity’s financial statements contain the disclosures necessary to draw attention to the possibility that its financial position and profit or loss may have been affected by the existence of related parties and by transactions and outstanding balances, including commitments, with such parties.
[23] AASB 124, clause 1.
As the Company is a publicly listed company, the information contained within this Disclosure Statement would have been made available to the public in order that the public could properly assess and comprehend the Company’s financial position.
The Disclosure Statement provides that:
“I confirm that the information set out below shows all transactions I have had, directly or indirectly, with the Company and its subsidiaries”.
The Applicant confirmed at the hearing that he executed the Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to the Disclosure Statement the Applicant declared that it concerns transactions between himself, as Managing Director of the Company, and the Company and that in the year ended 30 June 2012 the total receivable from the Company by the Applicant was $406,627 made up of $206,627 in salary and fees and $200,000 in cash and other bonuses. This total figure is similar to the amount contended by the Commissioner.
The Applicant said the amount of $406,627 was “receivable” and owing to him and that the $200,000 “bonus” was actually for back pay for work performed in 2010 and 2011. The Applicant said his issue is that the money was received by his former spouse and not him.
The Applicant’s response to the Disclosure Statement was to say that figure ($406,627) was incorrect. When asked why he executed a document that was to be made available to the public knowing that it contained incorrect financial information he said:
I would have signed papers at the direction of the Company.
The Applicant was the Managing Director of the Company. The Managing Director of a publicly listed company is not only the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Company but is also a member of the company’s board. The Australian Institute of Company Directors describes one of the primary responsibilities of a CEO as being:[24]
· Managing the organisation’s financial and other reporting mechanisms, and control and monitoring systems, to ensure that these mechanisms and systems capture all relevant material information on a timely basis, are functioning effectively and are founded on a sound basis of prudential risk management;
[24] AICD, Role of chief executive officer or managing director Governance relations fact sheet, pg 1.
Company Officeholders, which includes CEOs, have legal obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 to keep accurate financial records, and keep company details up to date or they can be subject to heavy fines and other penalties.
The Company Account discloses the actual amounts paid by the Company into the Applicant’s account. The contents have been authorised by a company representative. The Westpac Account entries match up with the Company Account records in terms of dates and amounts. The Disclosure Statement confirms what the Applicant knew the Company’s position to be at the time in question and the transaction amounts disclosed within the Disclosure Statement are close to the actual amounts shown to have been received in the Applicant’s Westpac Account.

The Tribunal finds that, based on the available evidence, the Applicant has failed to discharge his onus to establish that the default assessment of his taxable income for the 2012 financial year is excessive.
ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS
On 10 September 2018, the Applicant advanced new contentions for why the assessment is excessive.[25]
[25] Exhibit 5, Submissions of the Applicant, dated 10 September 2018.
Section 14ZZK of the Act provides that in these proceedings:
(a) the Applicant is, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, limited to the grounds stated in the taxation objection to which the decision relates;
(emphasis added)
The Commissioner submitted that the Tribunal should not make orders expanding the grounds for review, and that the Applicant should instead be restricted to the ground raised in his objection, namely that he did not in fact earn $436,918.
No case law guidance was found regarding the kind of circumstances where a Tribunal would consider allowing an Applicant to raise additional grounds of objection. The Commissioner suggested that where an Applicant had raised an additional ground of objection and that ground had some merit, that this may be occasion where the Tribunal would allow additional grounds of objection. There is logic to that submission. This Tribunal also considers that where there is no prejudice to the Commissioner and the Commissioner has had ample time to consider the new grounds of objection, there is also a basis for considering the new grounds of objection. In this instance the Commissioner has been aware of the Applicant’s new grounds of objection and has had an opportunity to provide written submissions responding to them. In these circumstances the Tribunal will allow the additional grounds of objection raised by the Applicant to be considered.
Applicant’s contention that the assessment is excessive because he derived no benefit
The Applicant told the Tribunal that the amount owed to him by the Company is as per the Disclosure Statement. However, he says he “never received any benefit at all from any earnings” from the Company. The Applicant says his income was paid into an account, the Westpac Account, that he did not have access to and that the default assessment is therefore excessive because he did not receive that income.[26]
[26] Exhibit 6, Submissions of the Applicant dated 14 September 2018; Exhibit 7, Submissions of the Applicant dated 6 November 2018.
The Applicant’s name is on the Westpac Account. There is no evidence supporting his contention that he had no access to the account and did not have any control over it. If the Applicant had no access to the account how did he know that his wife had transferred $140,262 into the account on 15 June 2012?
According to subsections 6-5(4) and 6-10(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (“ITAA 1997”), a taxpayer is deemed to have received an amount of income as soon as it is applied or dealt with in any way on their behalf or as they direct.
The Commissioner contends that it can be presumed that the Company paid moneys into the Westpac Account because that is what it was instructed to by the Applicant.[27] At the hearing the Applicant confirmed that this is the account into which he directed the Company to pay money.
[27] Respondent’s Final Submissions dated 12 September 2018, paras 18-20.
The Applicant says tax should only be extracted from actual receipts and as he has received nothing, no tax should be payable. However, this misinterprets the deeming provisions of the ITAA 1997. The Applicant seems to be arguing that he should be assessed on a cash basis method, rather than accrual based method, where in the latter only incomed actually received is declared. Taxation Ruling 98/1 sets out the factors that are relevant in determining when, in the ATO’s view, each method of accounting is the correct method to bring income to account for tax purposes. The ruling makes it clear that:[28]
8.…Under the receipts method, income is derived when it is received, either actually or constructively, under subsection 6-5(4) of the ITAA 1997. The effect of that subsection is that income is taken to have been derived by a person although it is not actually paid over, but is dealt with on his/her behalf or as he/she directs.
(emphasis added)
[28] See Australian Taxation Office, Taxation Ruling TR 98/1 [8].
Using the cash/receipts method, the Applicant is still deemed to have received the income when it was deposited into his account as per his direction.
The income amounts paid into the Westpac Account at the Applicant’s direction are deemed to have been received by the Applicant.
This ground of objection fails. The assessment is not excessive by reason of the earnings being deposited into the Westpac Account.
Applicant’s contention that the assessment is excessive because the PAYG tax withholdings are an accurate reflection of actual income received
The Applicant says he was of the understanding from the then Finance Director of the Company that any tax owing “was deducted at source” and that “I received nothing and monies paid, as far as I’m aware now and certainly at the time were remitted net of any tax owed to Australia”.[29]
[29] Exhibit 6, Submissions of the Applicant dated 14 September 2018.
Pursuant to section 166 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), the Commissioner must make an assessment of taxable income and the tax payable “From the returns, and from any other information in the Commissioner's possession, or from any one or more of these sources”.
PAYG amounts are not relevant to an assessment of taxable income. Rather, once an assessment has been made, PAYG amounts are relevant to a determination of what amount of tax has been paid and the balance of any tax still owing.[30] Therefore, as contended by the Commissioner, the fact that the Company did not withhold the correct PAYG amount does not mean that the default assessment is excessive.[31]
[30] See Taxation Administration Act 1953 - Schedule 1.
[31] Respondent’s Final Submissions dated 12 September 2018, paras 18-20.
Mr Dekkers informed the Tribunal that the Company had only deducted $34,738 PAYG from the Applicant’s gross payment of $175,000. This is clearly insufficient but does not take away from the fact that a net amount of $140,262 was deposited into the Applicant’s account.
The assessment cannot be excessive by reason of the Company withholding an amount of PAYG which was less than the Applicant’s tax liability. This ground of objection fails.
Applicant’s contention that the assessment is excessive because his Capital Loss should be deductable from default tax assessment
A taxpayer cannot deduct a net capital loss from their assessable income.18 A capital loss can only be used to reduce the amount of a capital gain.[32]
[32] See sections 102-5 and 102-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth).
The Applicant’s assessable income for the year ended 30 June 2012 did not include any amount of capital gain. Therefore, the assessment cannot be excessive by reason of the Applicant having made the purported capital loss. This ground of objection fails.
Applicant’s contention that the assessment is excessive because of his non-residency status in 2014
The Applicant left Australia in 2014 and contends that any tax owed from prior years, which is disputed, should “be netted against excessive tax paid in 2014”.[33]
[33] Exhibit 6, Submissions of the Applicant dated 14 September 2018.
Residency status in 2014 is not a relevant consideration to whether the assessment for 2012, when the Applicant was an Australian resident, was excessive. Tax liabilities in one year cannot be offset against tax paid in subsequent years. This ground of objection fails.
Relevance of the Applicant’s current financial circumstances
At the hearing the Applicant raised an additional ground of objection. Both parties subsequent to the hearing where given time to provide written submissions.
The Applicant submits that the default assessment is excessive because he has no income, capital or assets to pay the outstanding amount.[34] At the hearing the Applicant said that he is “completely impecunious” and that if the ATO debt were called upon he would have to declare himself bankrupt.
[34] Exhibit 6, Submissions of the Applicant dated 14 September 2018.
A liability to pay tax is not concerned with a person’s capacity to pay. The Tribunal is only concerned here with whether the assessment is excessive and cannot concern itself with the Applicant’s ability to repay the debt. The Commissioner correctly submitted that limited financial means is not a valid ground of objection to an income tax assessment and is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this matter.[35]
[35] Respondent’s Submissions dated 22 November 2018.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 65 (sixty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D K Grigg

..........................[SGD].............................
Associate
Dated: 18 January 2019

Date of hearing:

Date further material received:

9 November 2018

23 November 2018

Applicant: By telephone

Advocate for the Respondent: Alexander Dekkers

Solicitors for the Respondent: ATO Legal Services Branch

[2019] AATA 38

18 January 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Tax Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Penalty

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Transaction Date	Gross Amount	PAYG	Net Amount	Transaction References
12.09.2011	30,000	10,170	19,830	fls net dir fee6
13.03.2012	10,000	3,390	6,610	CBA FLS wage 10k gross7
14.06.2012	221,918	64,942	156,976	(1) [Company] unpaid fees8 (2) Dir back pmt9
15.06.2012	175,000	34,738	140,262	(1) Deposit Kylie10 (2) Bonus amend11
Total	436,918

Date of hearing: Date further material received:	9 November 2018 23 November 2018
Applicant:	By telephone
Advocate for the Respondent:	Alexander Dekkers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	ATO Legal Services Branch