Yelda and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure)
[2025] ARTA 2170
•14 October 2025
Yelda and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2170 (14 October 2025)
Applicant:Reem Yelda
Respondent: Commissioner of Taxation
Tribunal Number: 2025/3648
Tribunal:General Member J Dunne
Place:Melbourne
Date:14 October 2025
Decision:The Tribunal dismisses this application under section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).
................................[SGD]........................................
General Member J DunneCatchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application dismissed pursuant to section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) as comprised of judicial review grounds
Legislation
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 3, 5
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), ss 11, 12, 97, 102
A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 18, 21
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ss 14ZO, 14ZY, 14ZZA
Secondary Materials
Australian Business Register website “Objections, appeals and complaints” (at 14 October 2025)
Australian Business Register website “ABR integrity” (at 14 October 2025)
Australian Taxation Office - Practice Statement Law Administration PS LA 2003/7 How to treat a request to lodge a late objection
Statement of Reasons
Issue
This case is an application by the Applicant to review the Commissioner’s decision to refuse to provide her compensation under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme (“Compensation Scheme”).
From her Application for Review, the grounds she wishes to pursue are that in refusing her application under the Compensation Scheme:
a.There has been maladministration or defective administration by the Commissioner;
b.The Commissioner has breached the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (“TAA”);
c.There has been a lack of fairness, false statements from the Commissioner, a lack of accountability, and abuse of power; and
d.Administrative errors were made, including failing to take into account relevant considerations such as the impact on the Applicant’s personal wellbeing and the costs imposed upon her.
In broad terms, this matter relates to two matters.
a.The first is a tax debt in the 2018 year that amounted to over $45,000, which was not objected to by the Applicant and which the Commissioner determined in 2019 was not economical to pursue. The Applicant engaged with the Commissioner in 2019 and says she was given incorrect advice. She also says that credits from returns she filed in 2021 and 2022 have been inappropriately applied to the 2018 tax debt. She sought compensation from the Commissioner under the Compensation Scheme, and this was refused.
b.There is also an issue about the cancellation of her Australian Business Number (“ABN”). The Applicant says it was cancelled without notice, and her application for a new ABN was refused without substantive reason.
The Applicant also complains about the Inspector General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (“IGOT”) which participated in a review which she considers inadequate as well as a waste of public funds. IGOT is not specified as a respondent and so I comment no further on that.
Section 11 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (“ART Act”) provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to review “reviewable decisions”. Under section 12 of the ART Act a “reviewable decision” arises if an Act or legislative instrument provides for the application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the relevant decision. In terms of decisions by the Commissioner, under the TAA the Tribunal has powers to review “reviewable objection decisions” (broadly, these are disallowed objections to taxation assessments) and other narrow categories of decision, such as refusals to provide an extension of time.[1]
[1] See sections 14ZZA, 14ZO and 14Y of the TAA.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear matters of administrative law. Those matters are solely the purview of the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) by virtue of section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). By matters of administrative law, I mean considering the process of decision making, and pursuing grounds such as abuse of power, taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant considerations, breaches of natural justice, improper exercise of power, the decision involved an error of or was contrary to law, the decision was affected by fraud, and the other matters set out in section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). These are grounds that the Applicant wants to pursue in relation to the Compensation Scheme.
In terms of the Compensation Scheme, it is an administrative scheme and is not established under an “enactment” which takes it outside of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) because of the definitions of “enactment” and “decisions to which this Act applies” in section 3 of that Act. This means that any basis for review of the decision under the Compensation Scheme may only be available under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Such a review, if available, may be challenging. The Tribunal encouraged the Applicant to seek legal advice before determining to proceed in relation to the Compensation Scheme. What is clear is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims in relation to the Compensation Scheme. I say no more about it.
In relation to the ABN which was cancelled, section 18 of A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 (Cth) (“ABN Act”) provides that the Registrar must give written notice of the cancellation including reasons and the date of effect of cancellation. Section 21 of the ABN Act provides that the objection process set out in Part IVC of the TAA applies.[2] The objection process in section 21 of the ABN Act also applies to a refusal to issue an ABN. This means that the Applicant could object to the Registrar, and, if that was disallowed, then proceed to review that disallowed objection at the Tribunal. No such objection was made, and this means there is no “reviewable objection decision” in relation to the cancelled ABN or the refusal to issue an ABN. The Applicant must object first, and complete an objection process. She will be late in doing so now. The objection process in relation to the ABN issue is in accordance with Part IVC of the TAA, and there are provisions in Part IVC enabling late objections to be accepted as in time. The Commissioner has public guidance on its website, including in Practice Statement Law Administration PS LA 2003/7 How to treat a request to lodge a late objection. The Applicant should consider that guidance if she wishes to try to object late to the ABN decisions.
[2] This is set out in website guidance such as and >
As a consequence of there being no “reviewable objection decision” there is no “reviewable decision” and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. Pursuant to section 97 of the ART Act, the Tribunal must dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the decisions sought to be reviewed are not reviewable decisions.
Conclusion
Pursuant to section 97 of the ART Act, I dismiss the Applicant’s application for review. The Tribunal is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application because there is no reviewable decision.
If the Applicant thinks my decision to dismiss this application is wrong, she can either appeal this decision or seek reinstatement of the application under section 102 of the ART Act. That is for the Applicant to determine.
……………………[SGD]…………………………….
Dated: 14 October 2025
Date of hearing: 14 October 2025 Counsel for the Applicant:
Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:
ATO Review and Dispute Resolution
0
0
0