1. On 5 March 2024, the Commissioner issued a notice of assessment (the Notice of Assessment) to the applicant (the taxpayer). The notice relevantly stated:

This assessment is issued pursuant to section 14 of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (the TA Act).

1. The Commissioner's delegate assessed duty under section 90(2) of the Duties Act 1999 upon a "relevant acquisition" within section 86 of that Act, as being $140,000. The delegate explained in the Notice of Assessment why penalty tax and interest had been imposed in the amounts in which they were imposed and stated that the Commissioner had determined that it was not appropriate to remit penalty tax or interest.
2. On 14 March 2024, the taxpayer's lawyer, Mr Bryant, emailed the Commissioner's office, asking for remission of interest and penalty tax in full and a time payment arrangement to settle the $140,000 tax liability. The email made plain that the taxpayer was not objecting to the tax liability. The email stated, relevantly:

The purpose of this email is not to ask for a tax break, but to seek a remission of interest and penalty tax on compassionate grounds and on the basis of cooperation. Also, to ensure [Mr Bryant's human clients] are able to pay the outstanding tax liability ASAP.

...I'd like to ask if you would exercise your discretion to:

1. Remit interest in-full pursuant to s29 of the TAA
2. Remit penalty tax in-full pursuant to s37 of the TAA

1. Consent to a time-payment arrangement of up to 6-months to settle the $140,000 tax liability.

As they aren't objecting to the tax liability, asking for these remissions directly will allow them to pay the tax sooner. ...

1. On 18 March 2024, an officer of the ACT Revenue Office, Mr Burn, emailed Mr Bryant, stating:

The Commissioner has passed your email onto my team to consider your request as an objection on behalf of your clients in relation to the imposition of penalty tax and interest.

My team will shortly formally respond to your objection. A separate team will then respond to your time payment request.

1. On 19 March 2024, an officer of Mr Burn's team emailed Mr Bryant, acknowledging receipt of his objection. The email stated that the Office would endeavour to finalise the objection within six months. The email informed Mr Bryant of section 101(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (the Act) which provides that the burden of showing that an objection should be sustained lies with the taxpayer making the objection.
2. On 21 March 2024, Mr Bryant emailed Mr Burn thanking him from the email acknowledging the objection. He indicated that his clients, the individuals associated with the taxpayer, would have trouble meeting payments under a payment arrangement which had been proposed by the Commissioner. Mr Bryant stated in the email:

I recall penalty tax, interest and on certain occasions primary tax has been remitted for taxpayers, on the basis that there had been no avoidance and in the interest of collecting the right amount of revenue as expediently as possible.

1. Mr Bryant asked for a meeting with Mr Burn "to discuss this." He did not receive a reply to that email.
2. On 21 June 2024, the Commissioner's delegate issued what the delegate described as a "reviewable decision and reasons statement." The delegate disallowed the objection to the decisions not to remit penalty tax and interest and provided reasons for doing so.
3. On 21 June 2024, Mr Bryant emailed the Commissioner's office stating that his clients had not yet lodged submissions for the objection and asking for confirmation that the decision was not yet final.
4. On 24 June 2024, the delegate confirmed that the decision was final.

1. The taxpayer applied to the Tribunal for review of the Commissioner's decision on 19 July 2024. In its application for review, the taxpayer indicated that it was challenging the assessment of primary tax liability as well as the assessment of liability to penalty tax and interest. It stated, among other things, that the Commissioner had erred in applying penalty tax and/or failing to remit penalty tax.
2. The Commissioner's position is that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions as to primary tax liability and interest.
3. A hearing on the jurisdictional issue was held on 4 November 2024. Mr Bryant appeared for the taxpayer and Mr Wells of counsel appeared for the Commissioner. The parties filed written submissions on the tribunal's jurisdiction.
4. At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision.
5. The day after the hearing, without leave, the applicant filed supplementary submissions. The Commissioner objected to those submissions being considered on procedural fairness grounds.
6. The supplementary submissions summarised the applicant's submissions made at the hearing. In addition, they dealt with the effect of the email to the Commissioner sent by Mr Bryant on 21 March 2024, referred to above, which I gave the applicant leave to file after the hearing.
7. Whilst the applicant should have sought the Commissioner's consent, and the Tribunal's leave, to file supplementary submissions, I do not consider that the Commissioner is prejudiced by the Tribunal having regard to the supplementary submissions and I have considered them.

1. Part 3 of the Act is entitled "Assessment of tax liability." Subsection 7(1) of the Act, within Part 3, provides: "The commissioner may make an assessment of the tax liability of a taxpayer."
2. The term "assessment" is defined to mean:[1]

(a) an assessment, reassessment or compromise assessment of the tax liability of a person under a tax law, made by the commissioner under part 3; or

(b) an assessment substituted by the ACAT on review under part 10.

1. The term "tax" is defined as follows:[2]

tax _means a tax, duty or levy under a tax law, and includes - _

(b) any other amount paid or payable by a taxpayer to the commissioner under a tax law.

1. Subsection 14(1) of the Act, also within Part 3, provides: "The commissioner may issue a notice of assessment, showing the amount of the assessment."
2. Section 15, within Part 3, provides:

15 Inclusion of interest and penalty tax in notice of assessment

A notice of assessment of a taxpayer's tax liability issued following a tax default by the taxpayer must specify any interest and penalty tax that are payable, or will become payable by the taxpayer under part 5 in relation to the default.

1. Part 5 of the Act is entitled "Interest and Penalty Tax." Provisions in that Part provide that a taxpayer is liable to pay interest upon unpaid tax if a tax default happens,[3] and that the taxpayer is also liable to pay penalty tax.[4] Provisions in that Part also give the Commissioner discretionary powers to remit interest and penalty tax by any amount.[5]
2. Part 10 of the Act is entitled "Objection and reviews." The first two divisions of Part 10 are Division 10.1, "Objections," and Division 10.2 "Notification and review of decisions."
3. Section 100 of the Act, within Division 10.1, provides for the making of objections. Subsection 100(1) provides:

_(1) A taxpayer may lodge a written objection with the commissioner if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with - _

(a) an assessment, other than a compromise assessment, that is shown in a notice of assessment given to the taxpayer; or

(b) a decision mentioned in schedule 1 or schedule 2; or

(c) a decision under a tax law that is prescribed under the law for this section.

1. Section 101 of the Act deal with grounds for objection. It relevantly provides:

(1) The grounds for the objection must be stated fully and in detail, and must be in writing.

(3) The burden of showing that an objection should be sustained lies with the taxpayer making the objection.

1. Section 104(1) of the Act provides that the Commissioner must consider an objection and either allow the objection in whole or in part or disallow the objection.
2. Division 10.2 of the Act provides for two tiers of administrative review. An objection may be made to certain decisions specified in the Act. For some of those decisions ("commissioner-reviewable decisions"), the objection is determined by the Commissioner and there is no further right of administrative review.[6] For a second category of decisions ("reviewable decisions"), the taxpayer may apply to the Tribunal for review of the Commissioner's determination of the taxpayer's objection to an assessment or decision.[7]
3. Sections 107 (within Division 10.2) provides:

commissioner-reviewable decision means a decision mentioned in schedule 2.

(a) an assessment, other than a compromise assessment, that is shown in a notice of assessment given to a taxpayer; or

(b) a decision mentioned in schedule 1, section 1.2; or

(c) a decision under a tax law that is prescribed under the law for this section.

1. A decision under section 31 to impose penalty tax and a decision under section 37 refusing to remit penalty tax are decisions mentioned in Schedule 1, section 1.2.
2. A decision under section 29 refusing to remit interest is a decision mentioned in schedule 2.
3. Section 107A to 108B of the Act provide:

107A Meaning of reviewable decision etc - div 10.2

_(1) For this division, a reviewable decision is a determination by the commissioner of an objection by the taxpayer to - _

(a) an assessment; or

(b) a decision mentioned in schedule 1, section 1.2; or

(c) a decision under a tax law that is prescribed under the law for this section.

(2) For the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, section 9 (Applications under authorising laws), the tax laws are taken to be a single authorising law.

1. A taxpayer has a right of review of a reviewable decision. Section 108A of the Act provides:

The taxpayer in relation to whom a reviewable decision is made may apply to the ACAT for review of the decision.

Note If a form is approved under the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 for the application, the form must be used.

1. The parties' cases on a review before ACAT are not limited to the grounds for the objection.[8]

1. There is a dispute between the parties as to the nature of the reviewable decision.
2. The Commissioner submits that the reviewable decision is the determination in respect of the objection.[9] It is said for the Commissioner that the taxpayer only made an objection in respect of penalty tax and interest.[10] The Commissioner also submits that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction in relation to the determination of the objection to penalty tax, not in relation to the determination of the objection concerning interest.[11]
3. The taxpayer says that the reviewable decision is the notice of assessment, which was an assessment of primary liability, penalty tax and interest.[12] Mr Bryant submitted, for the taxpayer, that that could not have been the case, because the Commissioner did not issue separate and distinct decisions regarding penalty tax and interest, but rather made an assessment pursuant to section 14 of the Act, which included an assessment of penalty tax and interest. In Mr Bryant's submission, the applicant objected to that assessment, and the assessment constituted one statutory decision that was reviewable.[13]
4. Mr Byrant relied upon section 108B(1) of the Act in support of his submission that the Tribunal could review the whole of the assessment contained in the notice of assessment. Section 108B(1) provides that the appellant's and respondent's cases on a review mentioned in section 108A (that is, an ACAT review) are not limited to the grounds of the objection. Mr Bryant said that the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Commissioner and must hear from the taxpayer afresh. As he put it, "[t]he only statutory decision capable of being objected to was the notice of assessment."[14] By operation of section 108B, according to Mr Bryant, the taxpayer could ask the Tribunal to review any part of the notice of assessment, including the principal tax liability, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review it.
5. Mr Wells, for the Commissioner, submitted that what the taxpayer objected to, as a matter of fact, was not the assessment but specific decisions. There was, in his submission, an objection "lodged with the Commissioner, indicating that the taxpayer was dissatisfied with a decision mentioned in schedule 1 or schedule 2."[15] The objection, he said, was only to penalty tax and interest.[16]
6. Mr Wells also submitted that section 108A of the Act indicated that what is being reviewed by the tribunal is not an assessment or a decision in a schedule, but a reviewable decision.[17] The reviewable decision was, in Mr Wells' submission, a decision in respect of the taxpayer's objections to decisions concerning penalty tax and interest.
7. Mr Wells relied upon a passage from the decision of Senior Member Corby in Harding v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACAT 8 at [38], in which the senior member stated that "only reviewable decisions may be the subject of an application to ACAT and the burden of showing that the objection should be sustained remains with the taxpayer." Mr Wells submitted that this was a correct summation of the legislative regime.[18] He said that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the applicant's liability for primary tax in this case, because the applicant did not object to the assessment, but only objected to the decisions not to remit penalty tax and interest.[19]
8. Mr Wells also submitted that when reviewing a determination about an assessment, it is impermissible for the tribunal to circumvent the provisions in schedule 2.[20] Mr Wells put the Commissioner's position succinctly as follows:

We say the decision in respect of penalty tax and interest were decisions in respect of penalty tax under schedule 1 - the Taxation Administration Act in respect of interest under schedule 2 and the consequence of that is that penalty tax is reviewable as provided for under schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act. Interest is not reviewable as provided for under schedule 2 of that Act, and the taxpayer cannot pick up primary tax and interest by saying here, contrary to the facts, that it was challenging an assessment.

1. Mr Bryant's response, on behalf of the taxpayer, was, in effect, that the nature of the reviewable decision depends upon the original decision made by the Commissioner, not upon the nature of the objection. He submitted:[21]

... the appropriate review path is not determined by what the taxpayer has objected to. It is determined by the nature of the decision made by the Commission. Now, if the Commissioner has made an assessment of tax, section 100(1)(a) would apply because that's the only decision that the taxpayer can object to. If the Commissioner has made a decision under schedule 1 or schedule 2 of the Act there is that decision that the taxpayer may object to.

1. Accordingly, Mr Bryant submitted, the reviewable decision was the determination of the taxpayer's objection to the assessment, not the determination of the taxpayer's objection to certain decisions in a schedule.
2. Mr Bryant's submission that his client made an objection under section 100(1)(a) raises an issue about the interaction of paragraph 100(1)(a) (concerned with objections to assessments) and paragraph 100(1)(b) (concerned with objections to decisions in a schedule). Both parties maintained "that there is some difficulty in reconciling the operation of section 100(1)(a) and section 100(1)(b)."[22] As indicated above, both subsection 100(1) (dealing with objections) and the definition of "reviewable decision" in section 107A(1) distinguish between an "assessment" and "a decision mentioned in" a schedule.
3. Mr Bryant's submission, as to how those paragraphs are to be reconciled, was that where primary tax, penalty tax and interest were all assessed in a notice of assessment, an objection could be made to the notice of assessment under section 100(1)(a). The assessment could include the assessment of imposition of interest and penalty tax (but would not include the decision as to whether or not to remit either of those items).[23] The taxpayer could object to the notice of assessment, comprising a single assessment. However, if a decision referred to in a schedule was made as a stand-alone decision, not accompanying a notice of assessment (such as a decision to impose penalty tax), the objection would come within section 100(1)(b).[24]
4. Mr Wells submitted that paragraph 100(1)(a) "picks up all the components of an assessment, including penalty tax and interest as referred to in section 17" but submitted that this did not render paragraph 100(1)(b) irrelevant.[25] Rather, as I understood his submission, decisions about penalty tax and interest were to be dealt with under that paragraph. This ensured that the tribunal was not able to review decisions in Schedule 2 (entitled "Decisions reviewable by commissioner only"), even if they formed part of an assessment.

1. The better construction of the Act is that the nature of the reviewable decision is determined principally by the nature of the objection made by the taxpayer.
2. That construction is supported by the text of the Act, which provides for a review procedure in which the making of an objection is central.
3. Section 100(1) confers upon a taxpayer a right to lodge an objection with the Commissioner if dissatisfied with an assessment or a specified decision. The grounds for the objection must be stated fully and in detail, and the taxpayer has the burden of showing that the objection should be sustained.[26] The internal review process differs from internal review in most other statutory schemes, where there is generally no requirement that the applicant identify any error and no burden of proof. The circumstance that the taxpayer has the burden of persuading the Commissioner that the objection should be sustained indicates that the nature of the objection is of central importance in the review process under the Act.
4. The Commissioner is required to consider an objection and either allow it in whole or in part or disallow it, under a provision headed "Determination of objection."[27] A "reviewable decision" is defined as "a determination by the commissioner of an objection by the taxpayer to" an assessment or specified decision.[28] By section 108A of the Act, the taxpayer in relation to whom a reviewable decision is made may apply to the ACAT for review of the decision.
5. The Tribunal's task is to review the Commissioner's determination of the taxpayer's objection (the reviewable decision).[29] The nature of the objection therefore grounds the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
6. Mr Bryant's construction of the statutory scheme did not adequately grapple with the circumstance that a "reviewable decision" is defined to be a determination of an objection, and the objection must be made to either an assessment, or a decision, on specified grounds. As Mr Wells pointed out, for the Commissioner, the words "mentioned in section 108A," which appear in section 108B, indicate that the liberty to introduce new grounds is granted in the context of the tribunal's review of a reviewable decision. That is, whilst reviewing the Commissioner's determination of an objection to an assessment or a decision, the tribunal may consider grounds which were not advanced before the Commissioner. Those grounds must, however, pertain to the review of the determination of the objection. That is, the decision or assessment the subject of the objection is not changed by the applicant's capacity to introduce new grounds.
7. Mr Bryant relied upon a number of Victorian decisions construing section 109 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic) (the Victorian Act), which allows a court or tribunal to give a party leave to introduce new grounds on a review. Section 109 provides:

(a) the taxpayer's case is limited to the grounds of the objection; and

_(b) the Commissioner's case is limited to the grounds on which the objection was disallowed - _

1. Mr Bryant relied upon the remarks of Maxwell P and Buchanan JA, who referred to the power to grant leave to allow additional grounds and commented that the "relevant analogy is with an amendment of pleadings to add a new cause of action, which is a quintessential interlocutory order."[30] That passage is of little assistance in construing section 108B of the Act. Nor, in my view, are the other Victorian cases relied upon by Mr Bryant of assistance in construing the Act. The construction of section 108B of the Act depends, principally, on its text and context, which are materially different from the text and context of section 109 of the Victorian Act.
2. There is another issue, raised by Mr Bryant, as to whether a taxpayer may object to a notice of assessment as a whole.
3. There are a number of difficulties with Mr Bryant's position that such an objection is authorised by the statutory scheme. The applicant appears to have construed section 14 as conferring a power to assess tax liability, submitting that the Commissioner "made an assessment pursuant to section 14 of the TAA."[31] The power to make an assessment of tax liability is conferred by section 7 of the Act. Section 14 confers a power to issue a notice of assessment.
4. Mr Bryant relied upon the interaction between sections 14 and 15 in support of his submission that the whole of the notice of assessment was reviewable. As Mr Bryant pointed out, if there has been a tax default by a taxpayer, the notice of assessment "must specify any interest and penalty tax that are payable, or will become payable by the taxpayer under part 5 in relation to the default."[32] The requirement to specify the amount of interest and penalty tax in a notice of assessment does not necessarily mean, however, that the calculation of primary tax, interest and penalty tax forms a single assessment. It is not, in any event, a notice of assessment which may be the subject of an objection. An objection may only be made, under section 100(1), to an assessment or to a specified decision.[33]
5. On its proper construction, an assessment in paragraph 100(1)(a) does not include the making of a decision in paragraph 100(1)(b). That is because none of the decisions in schedule 1 or 2 to the Act is an assessment, as defined.
6. Section 100(1)(a) allows a taxpayer to make an objection to "an assessment ... that is shown in a notice of assessment given to the taxpayer." An assessment shown in a notice of assessment may include an assessment of primary tax under another Act (in this case, an assessment of duty payable made under section 90(2) of the Duties Act 1999). It may also include an assessment of the amount of interest payable (which is not a decision listed in Schedules 1 and 2).
7. The decisions mentioned in Schedule 2 ("Decisions reviewable by commissioner only") are not assessments. Those decisions include to refuse to remit interest, to refuse to vary the time for lodging a return, to refuse to vary the period to which a return relates and to impose conditions on a grant of permission to lodge a late objection. None of those decisions meets the description of "an assessment, reassessment or compromise assessment of the tax liability of a person under a tax law."
8. Many of the decisions mentioned in Schedule 1 are plainly not assessments. These include a decision determining the existence and effect of a tax avoidance scheme and a decision refusing an application for, or revoking, a beneficial organisation determination.[34] The decision not to remit penalty tax under section 37[35] is a discretionary decision, not an assessment.
9. The only decisions in Schedule 1 which could arguably fall within the definition of an assessment are a decision under section 31 to impose penalty tax and a decision under section 34 to impose increased penalty tax.[36] Properly understood, however, neither of those decisions is an assessment. A decision to impose penalty tax under section 31 is, in effect, a decision that subsection 31(5) does not apply. That subsection provides:

_(5) No penalty tax is payable in relation to a tax default if the commissioner is satisfied that - _

(a) the taxpayer (or a person acting on behalf of the taxpayer) took reasonable care to comply with the tax law; or

(b) the tax default happened solely because of circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control (or if a person acted on behalf of the taxpayer, because of circumstances beyond either the person's or the taxpayer's control) but not amounting to financial incapacity.

Note The commissioner's decision to impose penalty tax is an internally reviewable decision (see s 107, def internally reviewable decision), and the commissioner must give an internal review notice to the taxpayer (see s 107B).

1. Subsection 31(5) of the Act requires the Commissioner to consider whether he or she is satisfied of certain factual matters. It does not require the Commissioner to assess a person's tax liability. If the Commissioner is not satisfied of those matters, penalty tax is payable by operation of s 31(1) of the Act, and the Commissioner must then assess the amount of that tax (which is an assessment for the purposes of the Act). The decision about whether penalty tax is payable is to be distinguished from, and is logically anterior to, an assessment of the amount of penalty tax payable.
2. Nor is a decision under section 34 of the Act to impose increased penalty tax an assessment. Such a decision may be made "if the commissioner is satisfied that, after the commissioner has informed the taxpayer that an investigation is to be carried out and before the investigation is completed, the taxpayer (or a person acting on behalf of the taxpayer)" has done any of four specified things which broadly constitute showing intentional disregard for a tax law. That requires the Commissioner to reach a state of satisfaction about factual matters and is not an assessment of tax liability. Once a decision to imposed increased penalty tax has been made, the calculation of 90% of the amount of tax unpaid is an assessment, such that if there were a miscalculation, that could be the subject of an objection.
3. Accordingly, there is no overlap between an "assessment, other than a compromise assessment, that is shown in a notice of assessment given to the taxpayer" and "a decision mentioned in schedule 1 or schedule 2" for the purposes AT 6of section 100(1) of the Act. None of the decisions mentioned in schedule 1 and 2 is an assessment.
4. It follows from this analysis that the taxpayer's submission that the notice of assessment comprised a single assessment was misconceived. The notice of assessment notified the taxpayer of a number of assessments of the taxpayer's tax liability (such as the assessment of primary tax) and a number of decisions mentioned in schedules 1 and 2 (including the decisions not to remit penalty tax and interest).

1. The next question which arises is what, as a matter of fact, was the nature of the taxpayer's objection? Was it an objection to an assessment, or to specified decisions?
2. I accept the Commissioner's submission that the taxpayer's objection was not to the assessment of primary tax liability.
3. The taxpayer's request, on 14 March 2024, was for remission of interest and penalty tax. The Commissioner stated, on 18 March 2024, that the request would be treated "as an objection on behalf of your clients in relation to the imposition of penalty tax and interest." A decision under section 29 of the Act refusing to remit interest is a decision mentioned in section 2.2(a) of Schedule 2. That is, it is a Commissioner-reviewable decision and is not reviewable by the tribunal. A decision under section 37 of the Act refusing to remit penalty tax is a decision mentioned in section 1.2(f) of Schedule 1. Accordingly, the Commissioner's determination in respect of that decision is reviewable by the tribunal.
4. The applicant submits, in its supplementary submissions, that the Mr Bryant's email to Mr Burn of 21 March 2024 is sufficient to indicate that the primary tax was in issue on objection. I do not agree. That email set out the financial circumstances of the two directors of the applicant and stated:

I recall penalty tax, interest and on certain occasions primary tax has been remitted for taxpayers, on the basis that there had been no avoidance and in the interest of collecting the right amount of revenue as expediently as possible.

1. The reference to primary tax being remitted for taxpayers on unspecified occasions in the past did not amount to an objection to the assessment of the applicant's primary tax liability, in circumstances where Mr Bryant had explicitly stated that this was not in issue in his email sent a week earlier. Rather, it was a factor supporting his request for a remission of penalty tax and interest on the same basis (that is, it was an argument that if even primary tax may be remitted on the basis of no avoidance and in the interests of speedy collection of revenue, then there is an even greater case for remitting penalty tax and interest for Mr Bryant's client).
2. For these reasons, I accept the Commissioner's submission that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review any decisions concerning the assessment of primary tax or the remission of interest.
3. The Tribunal does have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determination of the taxpayer's objection to the decision not to remit penalty tax, as the Commissioner accepted.
4. I note that the Commissioner's delegate characterised the taxpayer's objection, in an email of 18 March 2024, as being an objection "in relation to the imposition of penalty tax and interest." This may have been loose language intended to refer to the objection to the decision not to remit penalty tax and interest. On its face, the objection does not appear to be to any decision under subsection 31(5) of the Act that penalty tax was payable. To the contrary, Mr Bryant asked expressly for a remission of interest under section 29 of the Act and remission of penalty tax under section 37 of the Act in his email of 14 March 2024 and did not mention subsection 31(5).
5. The reviewable decision and reasons statement focused on the remission of penalty tax and interest but the delegate stated, in conclusion:

For the reasons stated above, I do not consider it warranted to enliven section 31(5) (no penalty tax payable), section 37 (remission of penalty tax), or section 29 (remission of interest), TAA.

1. There may be an argument, in light of the wording used in the reviewable decision and reasons statement, as to whether the Tribunal has power to review the determination to a deemed objection to the decision under section 31(5) of the Act that penalty tax was payable, as well as the determination of the objection to the decision not to remit penalty tax. That issue, if it is raised, may be determined at the final hearing.
2. I will list the matter for directions to prepare the application for hearing, to the extent that the application seeks review of the Commissioner's determination of the applicant's objection to the decision or decisions concerning penalty tax.

[9] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 28, lines 2-3

[10] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 28, lines 23-24

[11] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 18, lines 17-29 and page 29, lines 13-20. See also Commissioner's written submissions dated 10 October 2024 at [32].

[12] Applicant's submissions filed on 4 November 2024 at [33], [35]

[13] Applicant's submissions filed on 4 November 2024, [33]-[35]

[14] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 37, lines 38-39

[15] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 17, lines 1-5

[16] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 17, lines 24-25

[17] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 20, lines 10-11

[18] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 21, lines 5-10

[19] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 21, lines 9-18

[20] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 25, lines 29-31

[21] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 31, lines 27-33

[22] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 31, lines 35-37

[23] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 34, lines 6-10

[24] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 32, lines 37-42

[25] Transcript of hearing, 4 November 2024, page 26, lines 5-12

[29] Act, s 108A; ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, s 68

[30] Harry One Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2007] VSCA 73 at [9]

[31] Applicant's submissions filed on 4 November 2024 at [33]

[34] Decisions mentioned in Schedule 1, section 1.2(a)-(c)

[35] A decision mentioned in Schedule 1, section 1.2(f)

[36] Act, Schedule 1, section 1.2(d) and (e)