Morrison-Francis and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for review filed by the applicant, Trent Morrison-Francis, against a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had validly lodged a notice of objection and subsequently triggered the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review a taxation decision. The Commissioner denied receiving the notice of objection at the time asserted by the applicant, and consequently, no formal objection decision had been made.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant's application for review. This required determining whether the Commissioner had made an objection decision, or if an objection decision was deemed to have been made under section 14ZYA of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth). The applicant contended that he had lodged a notice of objection with his private ruling application on 14 January 2020, and later sought a formal decision under section 14ZY of the Act via a letter dated 16 April 2020.

The Tribunal reasoned that its jurisdiction to review an objection decision is contingent upon the Commissioner having actually made such a decision or it being deemed to have been made. Section 14ZYA of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* provides for a deemed disallowance of an objection if the Commissioner fails to make a decision within 60 days of a taxpayer lodging a notice of objection, and the taxpayer subsequently gives notice requiring a decision, followed by a further 60-day period without a decision. The Tribunal found that, even assuming the applicant had posted the notice of objection and the letter of 16 April 2020 as asserted, the relevant time periods under section 14ZYA had not elapsed by the date the first application for review was filed on 5 May 2020. Therefore, no objection decision had been made, either actually or by deeming, at the time the application for review was lodged.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the first application for review and ordered that it be dismissed. The Tribunal made no findings or decisions regarding a second application for review filed by the applicant on the same day the hearing commenced.