PRICE & PRICE

[2014] FamCA 1020

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRICE & PRICE [2014] FamCA 1020

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where Consent Orders were made during the trial – where the evidence exposed potential deliberate non-compliance with Commonwealth tax legislation – referral to the Australian Taxation Office.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Price

RESPONDENT: Mr Price

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10935 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 17 November 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE:

20, 21 & 22 October 2014

Submissions received:
31 October and 7 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Bunning of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: McLaughlin Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hackett of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Worcester & Co

Orders

1. That the Principal Registrar provide to the Deputy Commissioner for Taxation the following documents:

   (a)the affidavits of Ms Price filed:

   ·2 December 2011;

   ·9 August 2013;

   ·2 October 2013,

   ·13 October 2013; and

   ·21 October 2014;

   (b)the affidavits of Mr Price filed:

   ·1 August 2012;

   ·9 August 2013; and

   ·13 October 2014;

   (c)the affidavit of Mr B filed 9 August 2014 (including its annexures);

   (d)the affidavit of Mr C filed 17 February 2014;

   (e)Exhibit A in relation to the admissibility of Mr B’s affidavit, namely the first valuation report of Mr C dated 13 July 2012;

   (f)Exhibit B in relation to the admissibility of Mr B’s affidavit, namely a bundle of correspondence;

   (g)Forrest J’s Reasons for Judgment dated 17 November 2014.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Price & Price has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10935 of 2011

Ms Price

Applicant

And

Mr Price

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The trial in this property adjustment dispute was listed for hearing by me over five days commencing on 20 October 2014. The trial commenced on the morning of the first day and at the close of proceedings on the second day I gave the legal representatives for the parties notice that I expected to hear submissions from them at the conclusion of the trial as to why the evidence in the matter should not be referred to the Australian Tax Office for the Commissioner’s attention having regard to the evidence that, on its face, suggested that offences against the taxation laws of the Commonwealth had been committed by the parties and other related third parties. The proceedings were settled as between the parties during the course of the next day and I made property adjustment orders, with the consent of the parties, later that afternoon.

2. Before making the property adjustment orders, I informed the parties and their legal representatives that I would still expect to take submissions from them as to why the evidence should not be referred to the ATO, even if I made the orders they were asking me to make. The parties,…