In fact, the applicants had failed to pay land tax or disclose tenancy details from July 2000 to July 2011.

Remission of penalty tax or interest must be an exceptional event since otherwise the scheme in the LTA and TAA for automatic penalties and interest as general deterrence of tax default would be undermined: Talisco Pty Ltd v Sarney (1987) 18 ATR 420, 87 ATC 4343, 4345_; Riverland Retreat v Commissioner for State Revenue (Vic)_ [2004] VCAT 1366; (2004) 56 ATR 490,497-8.

Similarly, the scheme of the LTA and TAA- whereby the taxpayer remains liable for the default of an agent -is inconsistent with the exercise of discretion not to grant remission to the applicants solely on the basis that the default was caused by an agent: Steele v Revenue [2010 ] ACAT 15_; Re Dixon v Federal Commissioner of Taxation_ (2006) ATC 2092, 2097.

• (a) There was no voluntary disclosure of the non-compliance. The tax defaults were discovered during inquiries by the ACT Revenue Office: cf Photocorp v ACT Revenue [1994] ACTAAT 91 citing AUSCO v ACT Revenue (unrep).
  • (b) The applicants' responses to ACT Revenue inquiries about the apparent tax defaults gave incomplete and incorrect information.
  • (c) There is no evidence of any hardship to the applicants that would result from payment of penalty tax.

9. As to remission of penalty the respondent contends that it should not be remitted for the following reasons:
   • (a) The tax remained outstanding until 9 May 2011, when it was forwarded under cover of a letter from the solicitor for the applicant RM Jokhan. The interest and the penalty were not paid at this time.
   • (b) The liability to pay the tax arose in 2000 (2 properties) and 2001

(c) Liability for interest under section 19A arises if section 14A (disclosure of rental tenancies) is not complied with. Such non-compliance occurred in relation to each of the 3 properties in circumstances where the applicants were aware of the existence of the obligation.

(d) The principal circumstance that contributed to the delay in payment was the applicant's neglect. No other satisfactory reason has been put forward for the non-compliance in each case: cf Steele v ACT Revenue.

(e) The applicants had been previously subject to investigation for land tax default (T25-22/101 Monash).

1. It was unfortunate that the applicants were represented by RM Jokhan himself. However, he was given every opportunity and assistance to present the applicants' case. His arguments for reduction or remission of penalties included -

• (a) negligent failure by his solicitor,
  • (b) he had taken reasonable care by briefing his solicitor,
  • (c) the Land Tax Office gave him incorrect advice after he had been notified that he was being investigated,
  • (d) English is his second language and therefore he did not understand fully his obligation under the law, and
  • (e) he did not mean or attempt to deceive.

2. These are all fully set out in the applicants' Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibits 2 and 4). The failure to satisfy the section 82 notice was not adequately explained in terms of the legislation. Furthermore, there was a great deal of other evidence which leads to the inference that actions taken by one or other of the applicants indicated an intention to disregard the tax law.

3. The reasons for decision of the respondent are not in error and I see no reason why the respondent's decision should be set aside or varied by remission or otherwise.

FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION ( )