1. Section 102(1) of the ART Act provides the Tribunal with a discretion to reinstate an application that was dismissed in error. Section 102(5) of the ART Act requires an application for reinstatement to be made within 28 days after the notice that the application has been dismissed has been received.
2. The Applicant has made the application for reinstatement within 28 days of the application being dismissed.
3. In the matter of JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services[1] (JTBJ), Kyrou J summarised the types of errors that fall within subsection 102(6) of the ART Act. Relevant to this matter is His Honour's summary of the case law that has considered the scope of the phrase dismissed in 'error'.[2]

1. The Applicant submits that decisions to remit or refuse to remit the GIC are discretionary and reviewable under section 8AAG and Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA) and that this position has been consistently affirmed by the Tribunal.[3]
2. The Applicant cites decisions in 'Sullivan and Commissioner of Taxation [2013] AATA 112' and 'Ward and 'Commissioner of Taxation [2016] AATA 744' to support his submission, stating that both confirm that the Tribunal stands in the Commissioner's shoes when reconsidering remission decisions and must determine whether, in fairness and reasonableness, the GIC should be remitted.[4]
3. The Applicant submits that each authority establishes that:

(a) the Tribunal has full jurisdiction to review a refusal to remit a GIC > > (b) the Tribunal stands in the Commissioner's shoes and must make the correct or preferable decision based on the evidence > > (c) decisions must be fair, reasonable, and based on accurate facts, taking into account hardship, cooperation, and causes beyond the taxpayer's control, and > > (d) the legislative framework for remission under s 8AAG has remained unchanged since these authorities were decided, meaning the same principles continue to apply today.

1. The Respondent submits that the application was not dismissed in error because a decision not to remit a GIC is not one the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review. The Respondent relied on a recent decision of the Tribunal in Samadi and Commissioner of Taxation[5] (Samadi) to contend that the available course of external review is an application under the ADJR Act.

1. After reviewing the history of the application and the Tribunal's decision to dismiss, I can find nothing to suggest that the application was dismissed in error. As explained by the Tribunal in Samadi:

(a) Section 12 of the ART Act provides that a decision is a reviewable decision if an 'Act or legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for a review of the decision'. > > (b) Section 14ZZ(1)(a)(i) of the TAA provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's objection decision - if that decision is a reviewable objection decision - may apply to the Tribunal for a review of that decision, or appeal to the Federal Court. > > (c) A reviewable objection decision is defined to mean an objection decision that is not an ineligible income tax remission decision.[6] Taxation objection has the meaning given by s 14ZL of the TAA. > > (d) Section 14ZL of the TAA is the application provision for Part IVC (Taxation-Objections, Reviews and Appeals) and triggers the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It provides: > > (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. > > (e) Under section 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. Under s 14ZY(2), this decision becomes an objection decision. > > (f) Section 8AAG in Part IIA of the TAA deals with the remission of interest. Part IIA does not provide for a right of review at the Tribunal of decisions made under the Part.

2. The Commissioner notes and it was also my observation that the cases cited by the Applicant do not appear to exist or stand for the proposition that the Applicant suggests they do.
3. Citation [2013] AATA 112 corresponds with the matter of Confidential and Commissioner of Taxation [2013] AATA 112. That is a taxation matter that deals with the assessment of undisclosed deposits and income. It does not deal with section 8AAG of the TAA, nor does it contain the passages referenced by the Applicant.
4. Citation [2016] AATA 744 corresponds with the matter of Murphy and Comcare [2016] AATA 744. That is a Commonwealth compensation case dealing with work-caused right wrist ganglion.
5. The Applicant subsequently acknowledged his error and sought an extension of time for the filing of supplementary submissions stating that his focus moving forward 'will be on verifying decisions, legislation and administrative materials that relate to the Commissioner's exercise of discretion under section 8AAG of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, with particular attention to the fairness, transparency and reasonableness of the decision-making process'.[7]
6. The Respondent's views in relation to the Applicant's request were sought by the Tribunal. The Respondent's views were that, given the Applicant discussed at length what he claimed were verified authorities that he now accepts are false, there is no suggestion that further time will allow the Applicant to usefully assist in circumstances where the Tribunal has already dismissed this matter for want of jurisdiction.
7. I agree with the Respondent's views. Given the events that have taken place and the focus of the Applicant's future research endeavours, I think it is highly unlikely that further submissions from the Applicant on this issue will lead to me conclude that the application can be reinstated under s102(6) of the ART Act.

Can the application be reinstated in other specified circumstances?

1. Section 102(7) provides reinstatement in other specified circumstances. The section does not provide for reinstatement in circumstances where an application has been dismissed because the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.
2. This means the application cannot be reinstated under s 102(7) and there is no other provision in the ART Act that permits that application to be reinstated at the Applicant's request.

[3] Applicant's response to Respondent's submissions dated 31 October 2025.

[6] Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 14ZQ.

[7] Applicant's email to the Tribunal dated 12 November 2025.