1. The Commissioner submitted that Mr Haines failed to discharge his evidentiary burden. First the Applicant had failed to establish all the expenses were actually incurred by him. In this regard many of the invoices were issued to the corporate entities associated with the Applicant and Mr Haines's focus on the fact that he may have met the expense is misconceived.
2. Second, Mr Haines had failed to establish on the evidence a sufficient nexus to expenses claimed and the derivation of the assessable income. There was no obvious connection to some of the expenses and the Applicant had not derived any assessable income from his roles as director of the relevant companies and had not adduced evidence demonstrating a real prospect of deriving such income in the future. In those circumstances, the Respondent's admitted that the expenses were incurred at a point to soon.
3. Third, the Respondent contended the Applicant's evidence suggested that he did not distinguish between expenses incurred in connection with his employment, his directorship roles and the various business activities said to be undertaken through different entities. The Commissioner submitted this approach was inconsistent with the requirement to identify which expenses were incurred in gaining producing the Applicants assessable income.
4. Fourth, to the extent expenses were incurred in connection with the Applicant's income producing activities, he had not established that the expenses did not fall within the negative limb of Section 8-1 of the ITAA 97. In his respect, a number of the expenses appeared, on their face to be private or capital in nature.
5. Finally, the Commissioner says Mr Haines has not established that the Unity Scents activities satisfy the requirements for the non-commercial loss provision as the Applicant's estimate future income was speculative and unsupported by reliable evidence.
6. In respect of the income of the sole trader activities, the Respondent argued the Applicant had not established the income from Unity Scents activities was the amount asserted. The Respondent pointed to evidence of deposits into accounts associated with those activities which exceeded the amount of income reported by the Applicant and which, in the respondents submission, had not been satisfactorily explained.
7. In relation to the administrative penalty, the Commissioner argued there was no satisfactory evidence demonstrating Mr Haines relied upon professional advice in preparing the relevant tax return. The Applicant ultimately lodged the return himself and in doing so made his own judgments regarding the deductibility of expenses and the manner in which income and expenses associated with the Unity Scents activities should be reported. In those circumstances, the Applicant's conduct fell within the meaning of recklessness. Further, no circumstances had been identified which would justify remission of the penalty

1. During cross-examination, there were several times where Mr Haines did not directly answer the question but made submissions on how he considered the law applied to the circumstances of his case. It was necessary for the Tribunal to direct the Applicant to answer the question asked on several occasions.
2. Some of the Applicant's evidence and submissions focused on the manner in which the Commissioner conducted the audit and objection process. Although I accept that those matters may be of significance to Mr Haines and have been a source of frustration, inconvenience or distress, they are not outlined or discussed in any detail in these reasons as they are extraneous to the Tribunal's task.
3. In cases of this nature, an Applicant is required to establish the relevant assessment is excessive or incorrect and what the assessment should be. There is no onus on the Commissioner to show that the assessments were reasonable or supported by evidence and the Tribunal does not need to be satisfied that the assessments represent the correct and preferable decision.[27]
4. In a taxation review, the process by which the Commissioner made the assessment or objection decision is completely irrelevant to what the Tribunal must decide[28] Even if an Applicant can establish errors in the process or cast doubt on aspects of the Commissioner's reasoning, that does not discharge the statutory onus placed on the Applicant to prove their actual taxable income and that it is less than the amount assessed.[29]
5. Discharging that burden requires the Applicant to do more than provide a tranche of documents such as bank statements, invoices or the like. It is incumbent upon the taxpayer to specifically identify the evidence relied upon and demonstrate how that evidence establishes is the factual matters necessary to show the assessments are incorrect.
6. It is not the role of the Tribunal to identify or obtain additional evidence on behalf of a party or to reconstruct the parties case from materials that have not been tendered. Similarly, although the Commissioner has an obligation to assist the Tribunal to reach the correct and preferable decision, that obligation does not extend to identifying additional evidence that might assist the Applicant in discharging the statutory burden. So, while the proceedings have an inquisitorial feature it remains the responsibility of each party to identify and present the necessary evidence to establish their case.

1. In circumstances where the Applicant is required to establish that an expense was incurred in the course of gaining or producing assessable income or was necessarily incurred in the production of business income, identifying the nature and scope of the income producing activities is of significance. It is by reference to the income producing activity that the requisite nexus of the expense is established by the taxpayer.
2. Nexus requires more than a general or broad connection between an expense and an income producing activity. In the case of an employee, the expense must be productive of the work duties. Where the claim is said to arise in the capacity of a director, the relevant question is whether the expense is incurred in gaining or producing income derived in that capacity. Similarly, where the claim is said to arise from the carrying on of a business, the expense must be necessarily incurred in carrying out that business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income.
3. It is common ground between the parties that Mr Haines was employed with ShipBob until December 2023. He worked from home on a fulltime basis and was responsible for managing clients in the Asia Pacific region. Mr Haines gave evidence that he was required to travel from time to time to attend events. On occasion expenses associated with those activities was not reimbursed.
4. The nature and scope of the remaining activities of the Applicant is less clear. Mr Haines contends that during the Income Year he was engaged in several entrepreneurial ventures. These included:
   • Unity Scents, which was primarily directed to the development and distribution of perfume products;
   • AI Army Pty Ltd which was described as a technology venture developing artificial intelligence applications for e-commerce businesses; and
   • Haines One which was associated with personal branding an entrepreneurial promotion.
5. A difficulty arises from the imprecision in the evidence in respect of the specific structure and nature of the relevant activities said to be conducted for each pursuit. The Applicant's evidence was that the Unity Scents business initially operated as a sole trader and later transitioned over to the company. There is some material before the Tribunal which suggests that the Unity Scents business may also have operated as a partnership. No partnership agreement was produced or evidence directed to when it commenced or ceased.
6. Mr Haines also suggested that after the establishment of the Unity Scents Pty Ltd some aspects of the broader Unity Scents venture were conducted through the sole trader enterprise while other aspects were undertaken through the corporate entity. The evidence however did not clearly establish the nature of those alleged divisions. In particular, the evidence did not specifically identify which activities were undertaken by the Applicant personally as a sole trader, which activities were undertaken by the corporate entity and when particular activities transitioned from one structure to another.
7. While the Applicant asserted there was no overlap between the activities undertaken through the sole trader and the company, his evidence failed to identify with any precision the tasks or operation undertaken by each entity. In the absence of such evidence the Tribunal is unable to determine with any certainty which entity incurred the particular expense or derived the associated income.
8. Apart from Mr Haines assertions, there was little contemporaneous evidence demonstrating that the business continued to operate as a sole trader enterprise after the establishment of Unity Scent Pty Ltd. Following this date, which was relatively early in the Income Year, the company held its own bank account and invoices were issued to it.
9. Where business activities are conducted through a company, expenses incurred in carrying on that business are generally expenses of the company. The fact that a director may personally have paid for those expenses does not convert them into the director's personal expenses for taxation purposes. The Applicant also suggested that a number of the deductions were incurred by him personally because he was the person who met the expense. That approach reflects a misunderstanding of the legal meaning of when an expense is incurred for the purposes of the income tax legislation.
10. Whether an expense has been incurred is not determined by the timing or who physically makes payment. Rather, the relevant question is who has become definitively committed to the liability. In other words the question is which entity is legally obliged to pay the expense. Private arrangements under which one person pays an expense on behalf of another, or is later reimbursed for it, do not alter the identity of the player taxpayer who properly incurred the expense.
11. In respect of the non-perfume related aspects of Unity Scents (for example the activities of Talking Ship or Haines One before incorporation) the evidence before the Tribunal did not clearly establish the nature and scope of the income producing activities said to be undertaken through each of these enterprises. The Applicant in his evidence described the activities in broad terms such as 'consulting' or 'promotion'. There was no evidence demonstrating how these business operated, exactly what services or goods were supplied, or how income was to be generated.
12. Mr Haines stated some of the expenses were incurred in connection to his directorship of Unity Scents Pty Ltd, AI Army Pty Ltd and Haines One Pty Ltd In the case of AI Army, the company was incorporated only a couple of months before the end of the financial year, Haines One Pty Ltd was not incorporated until the following financial year. Any expenses that predate the Applicant's appointment as a director, were incurred at a point to soon and would not be deductable in any event.
13. Nor was there any evidence directed to the nature of scope of the director duties. Mr Haines did not derive director's fees in the Income Year (or any later year). In those circumstances it's difficult to establish any expenses said to relate to those roles were incurred in gaining or producing assessable income.
14. In evidence were a substantial number of invoices said to support the claimed deductions. I accept those documents indicate that certain expenses occurred but the existence of an invoice alone does not establish the expenditure was incurred in gaining or producing assessable income. In some instances, the nature of the expense may suggest a potential connection to the income producing activity. But for some invoices, further evidence may be required, especially if on their face they appear to be private in nature.
15. There are also some invoices that are in the names of the companies or other individuals. Without more, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied they were incurred by the taxpayer or had the requisite connection to his income producing activities.
16. Another difficulty with the Applicant's case concerns the absence of independent evidence corroborating the connection between the claimed expenses and any income producing activity. Much of the Applicant's evidence consisted of general assertions that particular expenses were incurred in connection with his various entrepreneurial ventures. However, those assertions were rarely supported by objective evidence identifying the specific activity to which the expense related.
17. While the Tribunal accepts that the taxpayer's oral evidence may be relied upon inappropriate circumstances, the absence of corroborating material assumes particular significance where the claimed expenses are numerous and include items that may readily be private or domestic in nature.
18. The manner in which the Applicant identified and quantified some of the expenses was also a source of difficulty. In several instances the Applicant adopted a broad apportionment approach. For example, in relation to the ride share and food expenses the Applicant reviewed his transaction history and estimated the overall business percentage. That approach does not satisfy the statutory test. The relevant question is not whether a proportion of the overall expenditure might relate to work activities in a general sense. Rather, the Applicant must establish the purpose for which particular expenses were incurred and that they were incurred in gaining or producing or necessarily incurred in the production of assessable income. Given this uncertainty the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the apportionments adopted were fair or reasonable.
19. The Applicant also took the view that it was unnecessary to allocate expenses with any precision between the different entities or activities with which he was involved because they form part of a broader entrepreneurial undertaking. That approach is problematic if aspects of the undertaking do not form part of his income producing activities.
20. Mr Haines suggested that any specificity in allocating expenses between the different entities was unnecessary because there was no double dipping, and the tax consequence was immaterial. Although there may not have been duplicity in claims it is not the case that the tax consequences were immaterial. Claiming the expenses in his personal return would result in a refund, which would not have been the consequence had the expenses been claimed by the company.
21. Having regard to the evidentiary difficulties outlined above, Mr Haines has not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the assessment is excessive. A number of the claimed expenses are discussed in greater detail below by way of illustration of the evidentiary issues, however it is unnecessary to consider every aspect of the claim in light of the deficiencies.
22. Even if some minor expenses were established, this is insufficient in establishing the assessment as a whole was excessive. In this regard, a large number of deductions were allowed on the assumption that Unity Scents operated as a sole trader. For the reasons already explained, this may be hard to justify. Thus, even if some expenses were hypothetically allowable, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the total assessment is excessive and the assessment must stand

1. At the audit stage some of the expenses claimed were accepted by the Commissioner but attributed to business expenses on the understanding there were in respect of the Unity Scents sole trader activities.
2. The expenses relate to work related travel, clothing, self-education, phone, legal, home office and other work related outgoings. Mr Haines evidence was that in addition to ShipBob, the expenses also relate to Unity Scents, AI Army Pty Ltd and Haines One.
3. In evidence is a 'travel diary' which Mr Haines provided to the Commissioner during the objection stage which outlines travel he says was relevant to his employment with ShipBob. Due to issues with his American corporate credit card or the impracticality of the application some expenses were not reimbursed. There was no independent evidence to corroborate the travel expenses were incurred in the course of his ShipBob duties such as emails, meeting notes, conference material or evidence from his from his former employer to support this.
4. The diary also refers to travel in relation to Unity Scents, AI Army and Haines One. The explanation provided for the purpose of the various trips was in general or broad terms such as 'meeting potential investors', 'conducting research', 'explore opportunities' and "operational planning". However, there was no evidence directed to who the meetings were specifically with, exactly where they took place, the nature of the proposed commercial arrangements being discussed or whether any of those discussions resulted in ongoing commercial relationships. Nor was there any documentary material such as emails, correspondence, meeting records, proposals, agreements or evidence from witnesses who might corroborate those events and that they related to the identifiable income producing activities.
5. Some of the travel was prior to Mr Haines becoming a director of AI Army Pty and Haines One Pty Ltd. Without more, the description of the activities undertaken also suggest they may be exploratory or preparatory in nature.
6. In respect of the $2000 worth of travel costs, Mr Haines explained that he reviewed the rideshare transactions recorded in the app and determined the percentage of those trips which related to work activities. Those records were not provided to the Tribunal nor was any specific evidence provided as to the work activities undertaken in respect of those expenses. When a specific example was put to him in cross-examination, he was only able to say a trip was likely for one of his many business activities but could not explain with any certainty or specificity the purpose of the travel on that day.
7. The Applicant claimed deductions for meals and incidental expenses totalling $500. The Applicant again relied on broad apportionment approached based on his assessment of which transactions coincided with business activities. The evidence did not identify the expenses were incurred in the course of income producing activities. Many of the expenses also appear on their face be private in nature.
8. Mr Haines has also claimed deductions for self- education expenses of $2,833,17 which he says were relevant to his director duties as well as to ShipBob. The Applicant explained the resources were used to develop marketing and storytelling skills which he considered relevant to his various business ventures. One expense was directed to AI for business. It was not clear how they related to his director duties or why they were not capital expenses.
9. There are also a number of expenses that appear to be either capital or private in nature, for example:
   • In respect of headphones, podcast equipment and microphones which the Tribunal was advised were used to create videos, online content and to conduct virtual meetings for Unity Scents, AI Army and Haines One. It was not clear how much could be attributed as a company expense, or why they expenses were not otherwise capital in nature.
   • A garment steamer
   • Founders card membership
   • Binge subscription
   • Two iphones
   • MacBook
   • Mendi Device that that monitors blood flow and oxygen to improve focus and to reduce stress
   • Deepstash subscription
   • Amazon prime membership
10. There were also a number of invoices, which at the hearing were related to costs for company registration, the establishment of a discretionary trust and related matters. It is not clear the Applicant incurred these expenses. There were also a number of invoices that were issued to the companies.
11. Having regard to examples above, the Applicant has not discharged his burden of proving that the Work Related Expenses are properly deductible under s 8-1.

1. The Applicant claims business expenses of $29,031.49 for advertising, marketing, contractors, hardware and tools, inventory, R&D, shipping and postage, and subscriptions. across the following sub-categories. The Commissioner allowed a number of business expenses at the audit stage
2. The Applicant claimed approximately 60% of his rent and utilities based of a floor plan analysis. The Commissioner allowed deductions in respective areas however Mr Haines suggested that much larger areas of the house were used for business activities for storage connected with unity sense. There was very little evidence supporting that proposition. There were no photographs, inventory records or other objective evidence demonstrating that substantial areas we used for business storage or operational activities
3. Two of the three Fiverr International invoices were issued in the name of "Unity Scents Pty Ltd" on 27 July 2023 and 23 January 2024.137 A third invoice issued prior to the incorporation of Unity Scents Pty Ltd was issued in the name of "Unity Scents" on 21 July 2023.138 The Applicant's evidence is that this could have been because the invoice was downloaded at a later time "but is being claimed under the sole trader expense"139 and disagrees that the invoices were issued to Unity Scents Pty Ltd, the company.140

1. Although the evidence end submissions of the parties were primarily directed to the deductibility of the claimed expenses and the operation of the non- commercial loss provisions, the Applicant was also required to demonstrate on the evidence what the business assessable income was.
2. Rather than seeking to establish, from the ground up, the nature and quantum of the income derived from the business activities, the Applicant's submissions and evidence were largely directed to identifying alleged deficiencies in the Commissioner's reasoning. However, proceedings of this kind are not concerned with identifying the floors in the Commissioner's decision making process. The question for the Tribunal is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the assessment is excessive.
3. As I have already discussed, there was uncertainty regarding the structure through which the relevant activities business activities were conducted, including whether they were undertaken by the Applicant as a sole trader, through the corporate entities. There was also uncertainty as to who owned the funds in the various bank accounts. In this context it was impossible for the Tribunal to reconstruct the Applicant's income unassisted.
4. Further what is in evidence before the Tribunal is the Shopify report for the period starting 14 May 2024 to 30 June 2024 showing a total of $6,458.26 in gross sales and "Airwallex" statements that show deposits of $21,107.33 received in the particular account during the Relevant Year. I accept that some of the deposits may be capital contributions but not enough to reduce any sales to the figure adopted by the Applicant.

1. The Applicant contends that the losses arising from the Unity Scents activities should not be deferred under division 35 of the ITA a 1997. Relevantly, section 3510 provides that losses from business activity conducted by an individual will generally be deferred unless one of the statutory tests is satisfied. The Applicant says he has provided a reasonable estimate of assessable income for the Unity Scents business of at least $20,000 under s 35-30, such that s 35-10(2) (which operates to defer a net loss from business) ought not to apply.
2. During the audit, the Applicant provided an estimate of assessable income in the amount of $37,624.40 but later revised that estimate to $67,740.75 at objection. In support of that calculation, Mr Haines explained it he had adopted a part year trading rationale of $31,572 (base annual projection extrapolating the May 2023 sales), plus $4,604.25 in sales adjustments (for events like Black Friday) and $31,564.50 in wholesale orders.
3. This estimate is not accepted by the Tribunal for the following reasons:
   • The Applicants estimate cherry picked the only month in which sales were made;
   • any estimate of increased sales during peak periods had no proven reliable basis and not an appropriate estimate.
   • two invoices which the Applicant says are wholesale orders totalling $31,564.50 are issued by "Haines One Corp Pty Ltd" and would not be income of the Unity Scents business even if ultimately derived.

1. Although the evidence end submissions of the parties were primarily directed to the deductibility of the claimed expenses and the operation of the non- commercial loss provisions, the Applicant was also required to demonstrate on the evidence what the business assessable income was.
2. Rather than seeking to establish, from the ground up, the nature and quantum of the income derived from the business activities, the Applicant's submissions and evidence were largely directed to identifying alleged deficiencies in the Commissioner's reasoning. However, proceedings of this kind are not concerned with identifying the floors in the Commissioner's decision making process. The question for the Tribunal is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the assessment is excessive.
3. As I have already discussed, there was uncertainty regarding the structure through which the relevant activities business activities were conducted, including whether they were undertaken by the Applicant as a sole trader, through the corporate entities. There was also uncertainty as to who owned the funds in the various bank accounts. In this context it was impossible for the Tribunal to reconstruct the Applicant's income unassisted.
4. Further what is in evidence before the Tribunal is the Shopify report for the period starting 14 May 2024 to 30 June 2024 showing a total of $6,458.26 in gross sales and "Airwallex" statements that show deposits of $21,107.33 received in the particular account during the Relevant Year. I accept that some of the deposits may be capital contributions but not enough to reduce any sales to the figure adopted by the Applicant.

1. There was a suggestion in the Applicants submissions about the application of the safe harbour provisions in subdivision 284-B of Schedule 1 of the TAA 53. Those provisions only have application where a statement is made by registered tax agent or BAS agent on behalf of the taxpayer. In this case Mr Haines lodged the relevant income tax return himself.
2. Mr Haines says he filed the return based on the advice obtained from accountants and legal advisors. However, the Tribunal was not provided with the written advice said to have been given, the tax returns prepared by those advisors or any other evidence from the advisors themselves explaining the advice provided or the assumptions upon which it was based.
3. The material that is before the Tribunal suggests that the advisors initially prepared tax returns on the basis that the activities were conducted by Unity Scents Pty Ltd. The evidence further suggests returns were not ultimately lodged in the form prepared by the advisors and Mr Haines lodged his own return reflecting a different approach. In those circumstances the Tribunal cannot determine the content of the advice said to have been provided or whether the Applicant in fact acted in accordance with that advice. Is not appropriate to infer the advice supported the position adopted by the Applicant as reflected in the return in this case.
4. Mr Haines also have evidence that the Airwallex statements being in the name of the company may raise issues from the ATO.
5. As can be gleaned from the table in s 284-90 to Schedule 1 of the TAA 53, recklessness suggests conduct that is more blameworthy than a failure to take reasonable care to comply with a taxation law but less culpable than an intentional disregard of a taxation law.
6. The concept of recklessness was explained by the Federal Court as follows[30]:

Recklessness in this context means to include in a tax statement material upon which the Act or regulations are to operate, knowing that there is a real, as opposed to fanciful, risk that the material may be incorrect, or be grossly indifferent as to whether or not the material is true and correct, and that a reasonable person in the position of the statement-maker would see there was a real risk that the Act and regulations may not operate correctly to lead to the assessment of the proper tax payable because of the content of the tax statement. So understood, the proscribed conduct is more than mere negligence and must amount to a gross carelessness.

7. Recklessness is assessed objectively and involves conduct that demonstrates indifference to a rule risk that a taxation law may not operate correctly because of the contents of a tax statement. The concept has been described as involving conduct there's more blameworthy than a failure to take reasonable care less culpable than intentional disregard.
8. I am satisfied that the imposition of the penalties was appropriate. The evidence indicates that the Applicant adopted a position regarding the deductibility of expenses without clearly identifying the income producing activity to which those expenses relate, the Applicant treated expenses in curd in connection with corporate entities as if they were his own personal expenses, the Applicant relied upon estimates of apportionment and altered the basis upon which the returns had initially been prepared.
9. The Commissioner has a discretionary power to remit a penalty, including for a false or misleading statement. Whilst the discretion is framed without limitation, the exercise of that discretion is guided by Practice Statement Law Administration 2012/5 'Administration of the false or misleading statement penalty - where there is a shortfall amount' (PSLA 2012/5).
10. Consistent with the principles in PSLA 2012/ 5 remission in full or in part of a shortfall penalty arising from a false or misleading statement will generally only occur where the result is unjust having regard to all the circumstances.[31] There was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest this was the case.

1. the tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon him in demonstrating that the assessments are excessive and what they should be because
   • There was significant uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the income producing activities said to have been undertaken by the Applicant including whether those activities were conducted in his personal capacity, by corporate entities or in the course of his directorship roles. There was limited corroborating evidence to establish that the expenses claimed were of an income producing character in this context and the inherent capital or personal nature of some of the expenses claimed and Issues with apportionment.
   • The Applicant could not establish by reference to credible evidence that non-commercial loss provisions should not apply;
   • The Applicant relied in disputing the Commissioner's assessment of business income but did not positively show what it should be;
   • There was no evidence the Applicant relied on advice in the preparation of his tax return and the conduct was consistent with recklessness and not grounds of remission apply.
2. On this basis the objection decision is affirmed.

Litigation and Legal Services Branch, Australian Taxation Office

[1] Ronpibon Tin NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1949] HCA 15; (1949) 78 CLR 47 at [56-57]

[2] Commissioner of Taxation v Payne (2001) 202 CLR 93 at [9]; Commissioner of Taxation v Day [2008] HCA 53; (2008) 236 CLR 163 at [22]

[5] Magna Alloys & research Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1980) 49 FLR 183 at [185-186]

[6] Sun Newspapers Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1935] HCA 81; (1935) 54 CLR 295 at [303]

[7] Fletcher & Ors v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 173 CLR at [1]

[8] Ronpibon Tin NL and Tongkah Compound NL v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation.at [59]

[9] ITAA 97, s 900-10

[12] Imperial Bottleshops Pty Ltd & Egerton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, (1991) 91 ATC 4546, at [31].

[13] Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA 53), Sch 1, s284-80

[14] TAA 53, Sch 1, s298-10

[17] Sanctuary Lakes Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 50; (2013) 212 FCR 483 AT [193] per Greenwood J

[18] See for example Trautwein v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1936] HCA 77; (1936) 56 CLR 63 at [88] (Trautwein), Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Dalco (1990) 168 CLR 614 (Dalco) at [623 - 625] and Gashi v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 30; (2013) 209 FCR 301 at [314 - 315] (Gashi)

[19] Hua-Aus Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 341 at [22]

[20] Rigoli v Commissioner of Taxation (2014) 141 ALD 528

[21] McCormack v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1979] HCA 18; (1979) 143 CLR 284 at [301]

[22] Imperial Bottleshops Pty Ltd & Egerton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1991] FCA 276; (1991) 22 ATR 148 at [155]

[27] Rawson Finance Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 26; (2013) 296 ALR 307 at [116]

[28] Pratten v Commissions of Taxation (Practice and Procedure) 225 ARTA 161 at [40]

[29] Dalco v Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 168 CLR 614 at [201]

[30] BRK (Bris) Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [ 2001] FCA 164; 2001 ATC 4111; [2001] FCA 164; (2001) 46 ATR 347 per Cooper J at [77]

[31] Practice Statement Law Administration 2012/5 'Administration of the false or misleading statement penalty - where there is a shortfall amount' at paragraph 17