KPTT and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

This matter concerned an interlocutory application by the applicant, KPTT, seeking leave to rely on additional grounds of objection and a further amended statement of facts, issues, and contentions before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The respondent was the Commissioner of Taxation. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under section 14ZZK(a) of the *Administration Act* to permit the applicant to expand the grounds of their objection.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had the power to grant leave to a taxpayer to argue grounds of objection not initially raised, and if so, whether it should exercise that discretion in favour of the applicant. The Tribunal was required to consider the historical development of the power to amend grounds of objection, the principles governing the exercise of discretion in such matters, and the specific circumstances of the applicant's request, including the timing and the applicant's conduct in the proceedings.

Deputy President Bernard J McCabe P noted that the power to grant leave to amend grounds of objection, derived from section 14ZZK(a) of the *Administration Act*, allows a taxpayer to advance reasons for their taxable income and tax payable being incorrect or excessive, even if these reasons were not initially considered by the Commissioner. However, this power is discretionary and requires good reasons for its exercise, with applicants not being entitled to assume leave will be granted automatically. In this instance, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided satisfactory explanations for significant delays in seeking to amend the grounds of objection, having failed to comply with a specific direction to seek leave by a certain date. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's dilatory conduct and disregard for Tribunal directions frustrated orderly case management and the Tribunal's objective of assisting parties to resolve disputes efficiently.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that there were no good reasons to permit the applicant to rely on the further amended statement of facts, issues, and contentions. The parties were directed to confer on any necessary additional directions and propose dates for the resumed hearing.