VNBM and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the entitlement of VNBM (the applicant) to the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Cash Flow Boost) for the period ending 31 March 2020. The dispute arose from the Commissioner of Taxation's decision disallowing the applicant's objection to being denied the Cash Flow Boost. The Tribunal's task was to make a fresh decision on the merits based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for the Cash Flow Boost under section 5 of the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Act 2020 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant, or an associate, had entered into or carried out a scheme for the sole or dominant purpose of becoming entitled to, or increasing the amount of, the Cash Flow Boost. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant made a payment in the relevant period from which an amount was required to be withheld under specific provisions of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate entitlement to the Cash Flow Boost. A key factor was the applicant's purported substantial increase in wages paid to its director for a single week, which would have resulted in the maximum Cash Flow Boost. The Tribunal was not persuaded that this increase was genuine, noting a lack of contemporaneous evidence of the wage payment. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's assertion of a conversation with a bank regarding the favourable treatment of wages over dividends for loan servicing purposes. However, the Tribunal found this evidence unconvincing, particularly given the absence of corroboration and the director's inability to recall the name of the bank employee involved. Even if the wage payment had been made, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement that the scheme was not entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining the Cash Flow Boost.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision that the applicant was not entitled to the Cash Flow Boost. The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of section 5(1)(g) and section 5(1)(a)(i) of the *Boosting Cash Flow for Employers (Coronavirus Economic Response Package) Act 2020* (Cth), and therefore had not proven that the objection decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.