Ke and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed income tax assessments issued by the Australian Taxation Office to the Applicant. The dispute concerned whether the assessments were excessive and whether an administrative penalty imposed under section 284-75(3) of Schedule 1 of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth) was correctly imposed and should be remitted.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had discharged the onus of proving that the Commissioner's assessments of her taxable income were excessive. It also had to consider whether the administrative penalty was correctly imposed, specifically whether the Applicant had acted with intentional disregard of taxation laws, and whether the penalty should be remitted in part or in full. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to determine if the Applicant was required to be registered for Goods and Services Tax (GST) and whether the GST assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus rests on the taxpayer to prove that an assessment is excessive, citing High Court authority. It found that the Applicant had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the assessments were excessive. The Tribunal also concluded that the Applicant had acted with intentional disregard of taxation laws, particularly given her professional qualifications as a registered tax agent and chartered accountant, and that the statutory test for an increase in the base penalty was satisfied. The Tribunal agreed that the Applicant was not entitled to claimed rental expenses because she failed to prove that the rental income was derived by the Ashwood Property. Regarding GST, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's annual turnover exceeded the GST turnover threshold from 1 July 2013, making her liable for GST registration, and she failed to establish that the GST assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal amended the reviewable decision for the 2013 financial year, determining the Applicant's taxable income to be $90,280 and remitting the penalty to $29,025.90. The reviewable decision for the 2014 financial year was affirmed.