Lewis and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Ms Lewis for a review of a penalty imposed under Division 269 of Schedule 1 of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth). The Commissioner of Taxation had issued a director penalty notice to Ms Lewis.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to review the penalty notice issued under Division 269. This required the Tribunal to determine the scope of its review powers as conferred by the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) (the Tribunal Act) and its interaction with the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth) (the Administration Act). Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain if decisions made under Division 269 of Schedule 1 of the Administration Act were "reviewable decisions" within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

The Tribunal reasoned that its jurisdiction is strictly limited by the powers conferred upon it by statute. Section 25 of the Tribunal Act establishes the general framework for review, requiring that another enactment provide for applications to be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions made under that enactment. In the context of Commonwealth taxation, Part IVC of the Administration Act, particularly sections 14ZO and 14ZZA, links to section 25 of the Tribunal Act by defining which taxation decisions are reviewable. The Tribunal noted that section 14ZZA applies the Tribunal Act to the review of "reviewable objection decisions" and "extension of time refusal decisions." A "reviewable objection decision" is defined as an objection decision, which is a decision by the Commissioner to allow or disallow an objection. The Tribunal concluded that a liability imposed under Division 269 of Schedule 1 of the Administration Act does not fall within the definition of a "reviewable objection decision" as it does not relate to an objection against an income tax assessment or a remission of prescribed additional taxes.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the penalty notice issued under Division 269. The application was dismissed.