Samadi and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and Procedure)

Samadi and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 787 (29 May 2025)

Applicant/s:  Abdul Wali Samadi
Respondent:  Commissioner of Taxation
Tribunal Number:                2025/3173
Tribunal:Senior Member L. McBride
Place:Sydney
Date:29 May 2025
Date of written reasons:      30 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal dismisses the application. The decision of the Commissioner of Taxation, which is the subject of the application, is not a reviewable decision pursuant to section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

...............[SGD]................

Senior Member L. McBride

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - taxation - request for remission of General Interest Charge – no jurisdiction

Legislation

Taxation Administration Act 1953 ss 8AAG, 14ZQ, 14ZL, 14ZZ

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 12,79,105

Decisions

Elias v Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1132

Isaacs v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCAFC 105

Sharp and the Commissioner of Taxation [2010] AATA 1023

Statement of Reasons

1.    On 25 March 2025, the Commissioner of Taxation, the Respondent in this application (Respondent), wrote to Mr Samadi, the Applicant in these proceedings (Applicant), declining to remit the general interest charge (GIC) imposed on the Applicant under s 8AAB of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA).[1]
[1] Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s 8AAB.
2.    On 15 of April 2025, the Applicant filed an application in the Tribunal seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision not to remit the GIC.
3.    The matter was listed for an interlocutory hearing on 29 May 2025 to address the question of jurisdiction.
4. As I explained to the Applicant at the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal is a creature of the legislation that established the Tribunal, that is the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act). The Tribunal’s power to review a decision of the Commissioner arises only if an “Act or legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for a review of the decision”.[2]
[2] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) s 12(1).
5.    As the application concerns interest imposed under the TAA, Part IVC of that Act applies.
6.    Part IVC of the TAA concerns taxation objections, reviews and appeals. Section 14ZL(1) sets out when Part IVC applies. The section is in the following terms:
(1) This Part applies if a provision of an Act or a legislative instrument (including the provision as applied by another Act) provides that a person who is dissatisfied with an assessment, determination, notice or decision, or with a failure to make a private ruling, may object against it in the manner set out in this Part.
(2) Such an objection is in this Part called a taxation objection.

7. Under s 14ZY of the TAA, the Commissioner decides taxation objections. The Commissioner must decide, under s 14ZY(1), whether to allow the taxation objection, wholly or in part, or to disallow the taxation objection. This is known as an objection decision under s 14ZY(2) of the TAA.[3]
[3] Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ss 14ZY(1)-(2), 14ZZ(1)(A)(I), 8AAG(5).
8. Section 14ZZ(1)(a)(i) of the TAA provides that a person who is dissatisfied with a reviewable objection decision made by the Commissioner may apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision, or appeal to the Federal Court.
9. A decision not to remit GIC is not a “reviewable objection decision” under Part IVC of the TAA. The power granted to the Commissioner to remit GIC is set out in Part IIA, under section 8AAG(5) of the TAA. However, Part IIA does not provide a right of review to the Tribunal of a decision made under s 8AAG(5).
10. While certain remission decisions concerning penalties may be subject to review by the Tribunal, a decision of the Commissioner that concerns the remission of GIC is not a “reviewable objection decision” and is not reviewable the Tribunal under Part IVC of the TAA. Decisions of that kind may be reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial review) Act 1977 (Cth).
11. It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal under s 97(2) of the ART Act. Accordingly, the application is dismissed under s 97 of the ART Act.

The taxpayer, Samadi, sought a remission of General Interest Charge imposed by the Commissioner of Taxation, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ruling that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such a request. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant legislative provisions concerning the remission of interest charges. The AAT was tasked with determining whether it possessed the authority to consider Samadi's request for remission and, if so, whether it was appropriate to exercise that authority.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether it had the jurisdiction to remit the General Interest Charge imposed by the Commissioner of Taxation. The AAT considered whether the relevant statutory provisions granted it the requisite power to remit interest charges, and if the request for remission was within the scope of the Tribunal's authority. Additionally, the AAT assessed whether the request was procedurally valid and whether there were any grounds for exercising the discretion to remit the charge.

In its decision, the AAT concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to remit the General Interest Charge imposed by the Commissioner of Taxation. The Tribunal found that the statutory provisions did not confer upon it the authority to remit such charges. Consequently, the AAT held that it was not appropriate to exercise any discretion in this regard. The AAT emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative framework and the need for parties to seek remedies within the correct jurisdiction. The AAT's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the relevant legislation and a recognition of the boundaries of its own authority.

The AAT dismissed Samadi's application for remission of the General Interest Charge, affirming that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the request. The Tribunal directed Samadi to pursue any available remedies within the appropriate legal framework, highlighting the importance of understanding and complying with jurisdictional limitations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established