Skinner (Migration)

This matter concerns an application for a subclass 189 Skilled Independent visa by Mr Skinner, which was refused by the delegate on the grounds that he failed to meet a mandatory criterion. The criterion required applicants to demonstrate a minimum taxable income for the four most recently completed tax years. Mr Skinner lodged his application on 25 June 2019 and was required to provide evidence of his taxable income for the tax years ending 30 June 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. While income for the latter three years exceeded the required threshold, the delegate found that the evidence provided for the 2014/2015 tax year did not meet the threshold.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Skinner had met the taxable income requirement for the 2014/2015 tax year. Mr Skinner had provided two notices of assessment for this period: one dated 8 April 2016 showing a taxable income of $125,539, and another dated 28 July 2016 showing a taxable income of $7,849. The delegate had treated the second, later assessment as the operative one, implicitly finding that it superseded the first. Mr Skinner's representative argued that these two assessments arose from split tax returns filed by his accountant due to his bankruptcy on 9 June 2015. The first return covered the period from 1 July 2014 to 9 June 2015, and the second covered the period from 10 June 2015 to 30 June 2015. It was contended that the total taxable income for the 2014/2015 tax year was the sum of these two amounts, $133,388, which exceeded the required threshold.

The Tribunal considered that both notices of assessment were valid and were not designated as amended assessments. It accepted the explanation that the split returns were necessitated by Mr Skinner's bankruptcy. The Tribunal noted that Mr Skinner's income in the years immediately preceding and following the 2014/2015 tax year was substantial, and a Payment Summary indicated a gross income of $136,052 for that tax year. The delegate's reasoning, that the later assessment overrode the earlier one, was found to be based on an assumption that the latest assessment invalidated the first. The Tribunal concluded that both assessments were valid and that Mr Skinner's taxable income for the 2014/2015 tax year was the combined total of the amounts shown in both notices.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Skinner had met the taxable income requirement for the 2014/2015 tax year. The decision of the delegate was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the delegate for reconsideration of the visa application, with the finding that the criterion regarding taxable income for the 2014/2015 tax year had been satisfied.