Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, s 68

Land Tax Act 2004 ss 14

Taxation Administration Act 1999 ss 31, 32, 33, 37, 50, 82

Cases cited: Belconnen Premier Inn Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 68

Carey & Butt v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2015] ACAT 85

Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Dataflex Pty Ltd and ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2011] ACTCA 14

Hay v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 23

Jokhan and Jokhan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2012] ACAT 15

Photo Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [1994] ACTAAT 91

Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2013) FCAFC 26

Scott and Anor v Commissioner of ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 73

Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [ 2010] ACAT 15

Theron v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 33

Touma v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 2

Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT 19/2016

COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE

1. The reviewable decision dated 4 March 2016 is confirmed.

1. The applicants, Mr Curtis Van Duren and Mr Luke Van Duren, are the owners of residential land, Block 11 Section 12 Red Hill ('the property') in the ACT. The Commissioner for ACT Revenue ('the respondent' or 'the Commissioner') administers the land tax and related legislation in the ACT.
2. On the 26 April 2016 the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Commissioner dated 4 March 2016 ('the reviewable decision') to disallow the applicant's objection to an assessment of land tax dated 27 August 2015 ('the assessment'). Their application was late but on 11 May 2016 the Tribunal extended the time for making the application so that the review could proceed.[1]

1. The applicants took ownership of the property on 28 January 2005. The transfer of title was registered on 12 February 2005 and showed their joint postal address as an address in Wanniassa.[2] That address was used for rates notices for the property. The Commissioner noted on 20 August 2010 that "Kate Elliot has authority to deal with this account as per Curtis [being one of the applicants]".[3] On 26 August 2014 one of the applicants, Curtis Van Duren, requested that the postal address for the property be changed to an address in Royalla. On 10 November 2014, the Commissioner received notification that the property was rented from 1 December 2010 (the voluntary disclosure). There was a further note saying that the postal address for rates and land tax matters was the Royalla address.[4]
2. When the possibility of unpaid land tax came to the attention of the Commissioner, an electricity connection search for the property was undertaken dated 16 September 2014.[5] The Commissioner then issued a notice ('section 82 notice') dated 25 November 2014 and then a further section 82 notice dated 7 January 2015, both posted to the applicants at the Wanniassa address. A third section 82 notice dated 30 March 2015 and a follow-up reminder letter dated 9 July 2015 were posted to the applicants at the Royalla address. The section 82 notices advised that an investigation had 'commenced' and required certain information to be provided by the taxpayer.[6]
   1. Kate Elliot first communicated with the Commissioner about the section 82 notices in an email dated 23 February 2015, seeking an extension of time to respond because there had been a delay in her receiving what she identified as a notice dated 3 February 2015 sent to the Wanniassa address.[7] She said that "it appears that the property was rented at the end of 2010", and she requested information from the Commissioner as follows: "If you are aware of any information that I have not been able to find, I would be interested in discussing that with you".[8] At the Commissioner's request, she advised in a further email dated 17 March 2015 that the postal address for the section 82 notice and related material was the Royalla address.[9] A section 82 notice was then sent to that address. Emails were exchanged seeking a response to the notice and making requests for further time to provide information about when the property was first rented. Time was extended but no further information was given and an assessment issued on 27 August 2015
3. The assessment issued by the Commissioner assessed land tax for the property (which consisted of a number of flats) for the period from quarter 1, 2006-2007 to quarter 1, 2015-2016 ('the rental period').[10] The Commissioner imposed penalty tax at the rate of 50% of the tax payable to quarter 2, 2010-2011 (inclusive), and also imposed market and premium statutory interest for this period. Due to the voluntary disclosure by the applicants referred to above (paragraph 3), the penalty tax was reduced by 80% i.e. applied at the rate of 10% of the land tax payable, in and from quarter 3, 2010-2011 onwards, and the premium interest was fully remitted in and from quarter 2, 2010-2011.[11]
4. Ms Elliot objected to the penalty rate and interest applied in the assessment in a letter dated 1 September 2015.[12] In her letter she stated, in summary, that the applicants had exercised reasonable care given the voluntary disclosure and therefore the penalty tax should not apply for the whole of the rental period. She requested that the premium component of the interest be remitted for the whole of the rental period because the applicants would have difficulty paying it.
5. The objection was disallowed by the Commissioner in the reviewable decision. The Commissioner decided that the applicants had not notified the Commissioner within 30 days of renting the property contrary to section 14 of the Land Tax Act 2004 ('LTA'), had not paid the land tax for the rental period as required under the LTA and Taxation Administration Act ('TAA'), and had not exercised reasonable care, nor did they have a reasonable excuse. The Commissioner imposed the 50% penalty tax and also market and premium interest up to the time of the voluntary disclosure, and for this period found that there were no grounds to reduce or remit penalty tax or interest. Because a voluntary disclosure was received on the 10 November 2014, before the applicants were told that an investigation would be undertaken, the Commissioner reduced the penalty tax [13] and remitted the premium interest[14] for the quarters from 2010-2011 onwards. . The Commissioner found no grounds for further reduction or remission of the penalty tax or interest for the period after the voluntary disclosure.

1. A hearing was held on 5 September 2016.
2. The applicants appeared in person, together with the agent appointed by Curtis Van Duren, Ms Kate Elliot. Ms Alicia Irving of Counsel and Ms Pamela Mathie, ACT Government Solicitor, appeared for the Commissioner.
3. Before the hearing, the parties lodged and exchanged statements of facts and contentions and lists of the authorities on which they relied. The Commissioner prepared a folder of relevant documents which are known as the T-Docs.
4. On the date of the hearing the Commissioner provided the respondent's outline of submissions, Exhibit R1. Following the hearing the applicant's filed a reply to the latter, dated 18 September 2016.
5. Uncontested facts were as follows:
   • (a) the applicants purchased the property in 2005, they did not notify the Commissioner that the property was rented until the voluntary disclosure received on 10 November 2014, it was rented for the rental period described above and land tax was payable for this period;
   • (b) the applicants voluntarily disclosed that the property was rented from 2010 onwards, before an investigation was started by the Commissioner. The disclosure was received on 10 November 2014;
   • (c) the addresses and agents notified to the Commissioner's office by the applicants were as follows:
     1. from the 2005 purchase date, the Wanniassa address was advised on the Transfer to be the postal address for both applicants;
     2. from 20 August 2010 the Commissioner had notice that Kate Elliot had authority to act on behalf of one the applicants, Curtis Van Duren;
     3. from 26 August 2014 one of the applicants, Curtis Van Duren, requested that the postal address for the property be changed to the Royalla address and the Royalla address was again noted on the voluntary disclosure received on 10 November 2014 as the postal address
     4. Ms Elliot advised the Commissioner to use the Royalla address in her email responding to the section 82 notice on 17 March 2015, where she had previously also advised by email that she was organizing paperwork for both "C and L Van Duren".[15]
   • (d) the Wanniassa address was used by the Commissioner to send rates notices for the rental period, and to send the two section 82 notices. The third section 82 notice dated 30 March 2015 and a follow-up reminder letter dated 9 July 2015 were posted to both the applicants at the Royalla address.
6. The contested issues are set out below:
   • (a) Is penalty tax of 50%[16] appropriate for the period up to the voluntary disclosure or does the voluntary disclosure demonstrate that reasonable care was exercised for the whole of the rental period, or that the penalty tax should be reduced and/or remitted under various sections of the TAA?[17]
   • (b) Do the circumstances support further reduction or remission under various sections of the TAA[18] of the 10% penalty tax imposed after the voluntary disclosure?
   • (c) Is the imposition of interest or the remittal of interest a reviewable decision?

1. In summary, the grounds for imposition of land tax are that the property is leased on the first day of a quarter and is rented at any time in the previous quarter.[19] The LTA provides for a written notice to be given to the Commissioner,[20] by the landowner or their agent about a property being rented and the date from which it is rented. If land tax can be imposed and section 14 is not complied with by the owner or any agent, then interest and penalty tax (in addition to the land tax) is payable by the landowner.[21] The LTA has separate criminal penalty provisions that can apply to agents in certain circumstances,[22] but these provisions do not relieve the owner of liability for compliance with land tax requirements and any penalty tax or interest imposed.[23]
2. Failure of the taxpayer to pay land tax is treated as a tax default under the TAA.[24] The amount of penalty tax is payable at a statutory rate depending on the circumstances of the default,[25] and in some circumstances is not payable,[26] can be reduced,[27] and/or can be remitted.[28]
3. For unpaid land tax, the default rate of penalty tax is 25%[29] of the unpaid tax. The Commissioner can increase the rate to various higher levels depending on the circumstances. In this case, the Commissioner increased the rate of penalty tax to 50%, which applies if the default was "caused wholly or partly by a failure by the taxpayer...to take reasonable care".[30] This higher rate applies unless there is a 'reasonable excuse',[31] the tax default "happened solely because of circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control"[32] or the penalty tax is remitted.[33]
4. While not relevant to this case, where there is an intentional disregard of a tax law, the rate increases to 75%.[34] The rate of 90% applies if the taxpayer or their agent conducts themselves in various unsatisfactory ways after being notified that an investigation is to be a carried out.[35]
5. If the taxpayer voluntarily discloses a liability for land tax to the Commissioner prior to being informed that an investigation will be carried out[36] or after this but before the investigation begins,[37] then the taxpayer receives an 80% or 20% reduction in penalty tax respectively. In this case, the taxpayers met the requirements for an 80% reduction in penalty tax because their voluntary disclosure was received before they were notified, by a section 82 notice, that an investigation was being undertaken.
6. The amount of interest payable for a tax default is set out in the legislation.[38] The Commissioner can remit all or part of the interest in certain circumstances.[39] The Commissioner did remit the premium interest following the voluntary disclosure in this case.
7. Section 50(1) TAA says that: "If 2 or more people are jointly or severally liable to pay an amount under a tax law, the commissioner may recover the whole of the amount from them, or any of them, or any 1 of them". This means in this case that either or both the applicants are liable for the entire land tax for the property.

1. The burden of showing that an objection should be sustained is with the taxpayer, the applicants in this case.[40] The Tribunal's main task in this case is to decide if the taxpayers have shown that their objection should be sustained.[41]
2. The Tribunal may confirm, vary or set aside the decision being reviewed. If the decision is set aside, the Tribunal may make a substitute decision or remit the matter for decision back to the decision-maker in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.[42]
3. Where a taxpayer defaults on their tax liabilities, interest is payable, and may be remitted by the Commissioner. However, decisions about interest and any remittal are not reviewable by the Tribunal.[43]

1. The applicants' contentions on the three contested issues in paragraph 14 above are summarised below.

Is penalty tax of 50% appropriate for the period up to the voluntary disclosure?

1. In summary, the applicants refer to various guiding materials published by the Commissioner which they argue provide support for being "firm with persons who try to avoid their obligations" and to treat everyone "professionally, fairly and with accountability".[44] They argue that they did not try to avoid their obligations, as the voluntary disclosure demonstrates, and they have been "classified incorrectly".[45] The applicants relied on various cases to support this view.[46]
2. The applicants argue that the inaccurate information about the rental period initially provided by them was not intentionally inaccurate, and once brought to their attention they showed reasonable care in resolving this issue. They argue that the investigation could have been avoided and the matter resolved faster if the Commissioner had shared its information about the rental period with the applicants when they requested this.
3. They argue that the fact that there were two taxpayers and an agent involved with the property "led to confusion", even by the Commissioner given the mix-up with the correct addresses for one or both the applicants (refer to paragraphs 13 (c) and (d)).[47] They emphasised that "the rates notices with the information regarding land tax were only going to one address", which they argue "possibly contributed to the confusion regarding the payment of land tax".[48]

Is penalty tax of 10% appropriate for the period after the voluntary disclosure?

1. All the arguments raised by the applicants mentioned in paragraphs 26 to 28 above apply to this issue. The applicants' main contention on this issue was that the 10% penalty tax was "incorrectly applied" because they have been "incorrectly labelled tax defaulters... [when they are] in fact compliant taxpayers with a history of compliance".[49]

Is the imposition of interest or the remittal of interest a reviewable decision?

1. All the arguments raised by the applicants mentioned in paragraphs 26 to 28 above apply to this issue. The applicants' main contention was that the imposition of premium interest (which was only imposed by the Commissioner for the period before the voluntary disclosure) created financial hardship for the applicants, given their disclosed taxable incomes, and that this hardship should be considered. The applicants raised that the resulting hardship, if viewed by other taxpayers, might be seen as a reason not to disclose; that is, might encourage non-compliance.[50]

1. The respondent's contentions against the issues listed in paragraph 14 above are summarised below.

Is penalty tax of 50% appropriate in the circumstances?

1. The Commissioner asserted that the applicants had not taken reasonable care; there was no reasonable excuse and no grounds for further remissions. The Commissioner relied on various cases to support this view.[51]
2. The Commissioner particularly relied on the fact that one of the applicants, Curtis Van Duren, owned another rental property (the Kambah property) on which he had paid land tax before the liability for the Red Hill property arose.[52] Also "Ms Elliot, representative of the owners and wife of Curtis Van Duren, had authority from 20 August 2010 to manage the accounts for both properties, which would have included the land tax component [for the Kambah property]".[53]

Is penalty tax of 10% appropriate for the period after the voluntary disclosure?

1. The Commissioner accepted that the voluntary disclosure was made before the applicants received notice of the investigation. As a result, the penalty tax was reduced to 10% for the period after the disclosure. However, the Commissioner rejected the argument by the applicants that the voluntary disclosure on 10 November 2014 demonstrated reasonable care by them for the whole of the rental period, or indeed for any of the rental period: "The fact that Curtis Van Duren was aware of land tax prior to the tenancy of the Red Hill property flats, and that inaccurate advice was given about when the rental began, do not evidence reasonable care...[furthermore] Ms Elliot stated that she forgot to respond to ...requests for dates of rental".[54]
2. The Commissioner found no grounds for remitting the penalty tax at all for the period prior to the voluntary disclosure, and no grounds for any further remission for the period after the voluntary disclosure, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 32 to 34 above. It emphasised that: "There was clear and continual advice provided by this Office in correspondence, rates notices and land tax pamphlets that a residential property, if rented, meant they were liable to land tax".[55]

Is the imposition of interest or the remittal of interest a reviewable decision?

1. The Commissioner's submission was that this is not a reviewable decision. As to hardship claimed by the applicants, particularly in relation to the premium interest imposed up to the voluntary disclosure, the Commissioner submitted this was not made out because the applicants were negotiating a repayment plan.[56]

Is penalty tax of 50% appropriate in the circumstances?**

1. The Tribunal finds that the applicants and Ms Elliot were honest witnesses, and accepts that they unintentionally omitted to fulfil their land tax obligations for the rental period in regard to the property. The Tribunal notes that the Commissioner has not contended that the applicants intended to avoid their land tax liabilities; the main issue was whether there was a lack of reasonable care.
2. A lack of intention does not excuse the applicants from liability for penalty tax and interest. The Tribunal finds that there was a lack of reasonable care by the applicants, and that there are no grounds for reducing or remitting the penalty tax, for the reasons set out below.
3. Liability for penalty tax falls on the owners of property, in this case the applicants, even though one of them appointed an agent, Ms Elliot. Liability does not shift to an agent once appointed. While an agent may owe a duty to their principal to discharge their role properly, the appointment of an agent does not relieve the taxpayer of their duty or liability to the Commissioner regarding land tax or any associated penalty tax or interest. There is consistent authority for this finding, for example the Wade case.[57]
4. There is a positive obligation on a taxpayer to make enquiries about their tax liabilities and to know about their rental arrangements, and there is no positive obligation on the Commissioner to know, in the absence of a notification pursuant to section 14 of the LTA, that a property is rented. The cases of Theron[58] and Steele[59] held that there is an onus on landlords to enquire about tax obligations. The principle that the onus is on the taxpayer was set out in relation to payroll tax in the Photo Corporation[60] case, and confirmed by the Tribunal in Belconnen Premier Inn.[61] It remains the responsibility of taxpayers to make sure that they, and their agents, discharge their obligations. The Tribunal finds that the applicants did not take reasonable care for the purposes of section 31(2) TAA and did not have a reasonable excuse, and have no grounds for remitting the penalty tax for the reasons set out by the respondent in paragraphs 32 to 36 above.
5. In the Hay case, the applicant was found to have failed to take reasonable care but the Tribunal accepted that he should have a reduction in the rate of penalty tax because of his personal circumstances which differ markedly from the applicants here: in the Hay case the applicant's circumstances included_:_

...the severe mental illness of a relative for whom he cared, the ill-health and medical emergencies of another relative for whom he also cared, his family and work responsibilities, and the impact on him of each of these circumstances and the totality of these circumstances.[62]

1. Similarly in the Wade case, where the applicants successfully argued for a reduction in penalty tax, the applicants' personal circumstances differed from the applicants here in important respects: they were unexpectedly detained overseas for the entire rental period, and experienced issues with their agent while also having no direct receipt of mail at any time sent by the Commissioner.[63]
2. The applicants' contention that the voluntary disclosure demonstrated reasonable care for the whole of the rental period is not sustainable. As the Commissioner argued, it does not demonstrate reasonable care at all given the circumstances of this case (refer to paragraphs 34 to 35 above). A fact to be given weight is that the voluntary disclosure was made over eight years after the obligation to pay tax arose. The applicants' contention might be sustainable in other circumstances, including where the voluntary disclosure is made much closer to the time when the rental period began.
3. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicants tried to advise the Commissioner of more accurate rental dates, and indeed asked the Commissioner for any information about the dates of renting. If they had provided more accurate information themselves, the reduction of the penalty tax to 10% might have been for a longer period. The applicants had the responsibility for obtaining this information. Also, there is clear authority for the Commissioner's decision not to share information during an investigation. This and other issues related to the Commissioner's investigative powers and penalty tax reductions were considered in the Dataflex case[64] and the Tribunal is bound by that decision.
4. The applicants' contention that the co-ownership of the property caused confusion among themselves and the agent Ms Elliot cannot be the basis of any reduction or remittal - any confusion about who was going to look after tax obligations for the property was of their own making and for them to solve. The fact that it occurred, further supports a finding of lack of reasonable care.
5. However, the confusion within the Commissioner's office about the correct address to use for section 82 notices and communications related to this matter, which in part arose because there were two owners with only one notifying of a new address on 26 August 2014, is relevant to whether there is a basis for remitting penalty tax. While taxpayers are jointly and severally liable, the history of communications with any taxpayer may be relevant to whether penalty tax and interest is appropriate in all the circumstances. More specifically, the Commissioner's use of a non-registered address for a taxpayer is relevant to whether a remission of penalty tax is appropriate. Effective communication by the Commissioner would usually require that all owners of a property liable for land tax are sent communications to their registered postal addresses, even if these addresses differ.
6. The issue of whether the confusion within the Commissioner's office about the addresses for the taxpayers justifies a remission rests on whether the use of the correct address for each taxpayer would have made a difference to subsequent events. The applicants argued that if each had received communications from the Commissioner, then "there is more likelihood that a conversation could have taken place regarding the payment of the tax".[65] The argument is not supported by an analysis of the facts. There was initially only one registered address for both taxpayers. That registered address was used by the Commissioner, who was not told of any other address, until a notice of change of address was lodged for one of the taxpayers, dated 26 August 2014. A voluntary disclosure was made before further communication from the Commissioner to either address. The disclosure was not connected to the Commissioner sending anything to the Royalla address. Both taxpayers subsequently received a section 82 notice, since a notice was sent to each address, albeit at different times (refer to paragraph 13(c) above).
7. By 30 March 2015 section 82 notices had been sent to the correct registered address for each taxpayer. Yet by the date of the assessment on 27 August 2015, neither had offered any more substantive information for the assessment than that provided in the voluntary disclosure made in November 2014. In any event, the applicants received the maximum reduction in penalty tax, 80%, available in their circumstances because of that voluntary disclosure. Any confusion within the Commissioner's office about the correct address to use for section 82 notices and communications with the taxpayers does not justify a remission of the penalty tax.
8. The applicants referred to the case of Carey & Butt v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2015] ACAT 85 to support a remission of their penalty tax. While the Tribunal ordered a remission in that case, this was in part because the incomplete disclosure by the taxpayer in that case did not lead to any reduction in the penalty tax under sections 32 or 33 of the TAA. The circumstances here are quite different.
9. Neither the decision to impose or calculate interest, nor the decision to refuse to remit interest, is a reviewable decision. As the law stands, that decision is subject to an objection but is not subject to review.[66]

1. The Tribunal finds that:
   • (a) the applicants did not take reasonable care and do not have a reasonable excuse;
   • (b) the circumstances that resulted in the liability for penalty tax were not exceptional and there are no grounds for a remission of penalty; and
   • (c) the decision not to remit interest is not reviewable by the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal orders that the reviewable decision dated 4 March 2016 is confirmed.

Taxation Administration Act 1999

(1) The amount of penalty tax payable in relation to a tax default is 25% of the amount of tax unpaid, subject to this division.

(2) The amount of penalty tax payable in relation to a tax default is 50% of the amount of tax unpaid if the commissioner is satisfied that the tax default was caused wholly or partly by a failure by the taxpayer (or a person acting on behalf of the taxpayer) to take reasonable care to fulfil the taxpayer's obligations under a tax law.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the tax payer satisfies the commissioner that the taxpayer (or a person acting on behalf of the taxpayer) had a reasonable excuse for the failure.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to a tax default that happened before their commencement in the same way as they apply to a tax default that happened after their commencement.

(5) The amount of penalty tax payable in relation to a tax default is 75% of the amount of tax unpaid if the commissioner is satisfied that the tax default was caused wholly or partly by the intentional disregard by the taxpayer (or a person acting on behalf of the taxpayer) of a tax law.

(6) 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. Reduction in penalty tax for voluntary disclosure

The amount of penalty tax determined under section 31 is reduced by 80% if, before the commissioner informs the taxpayer that an investigation relating to the taxpayer is to be carried out, the taxpayer discloses to the commissioner, in writing, sufficient information to enable the nature and extent of the tax default to be determined.

The commissioner may remit all or part of an amount of penalty tax payable by a person if satisfied that -

(i) the person has taken reasonable steps to mitigate, or to mitigate the effects of, the circumstances that resulted in the liability for penalty tax; or

(ii) the circumstances that resulted in the liability for penalty tax were exceptional; and

(b) it would be fair and reasonable to remit all or part of the penalty tax.

Note The commissioner's decision to refuse to remit penalty tax payable by a person is an internally reviewable decision (see s 107, def internally reviewable decision), and the commissioner must give an internal review notice to the person (see s 107B).

(1) If 2 or more people are jointly or severally liable to pay an amount under a tax law, the commissioner may recover the whole of the amount from them, or any of them, or any 1 of them.

(2) Nothing in this Act prevents a person who is jointly or severally liable to pay an amount of tax and who pays the amount to the commissioner from recovering a contribution from any other person who is liable to pay the whole or part of that amount.

[1] Rule 7(4) ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009 (No 2)

[4] Voluntary disclosure notice by applicants that the property is rented, dated 3 November 2014 and received 10 November 2014, T documents T84

[5] ACT Revenue Office, Electricity Connection Search, T documents T76-79

[6] Page 1, section 82 notices issued to applicant, T documents T116-122

[7] Email of Kate Elliot, dated 23 February 2015, T document T106

[8] Email of Kate Elliot, dated 23 February 2015, T document T106

[9] Email of Kate Elliot, dated 17 March 2015, T document T105

[10] Notice of assessment, dated 27 August 2015, T documents T123-126

[11] Reasons statement, dated 4 March 2016, T documents T27-34

[12] Letter from Kate Ellis, dated 1 September 2015, T documents T129

[15] Email from Kate Elliott, dated 23 February 2015, T documents T 96

[17] Sections 31(3), 31(6), 32, 33 and 37 of the TAA

[18] Sections 31(3), 31(6), 32, 33 and 37 of the TAA

[21] Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79 at [72]

[23] Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79

[38] Section 19A of the LTA and section 26 of the TAA

[41] Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2013) FCAFC 26; Touma v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWADT 2

[42] Section 68 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008

[43] Scott and Anor v Commissioner of ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 73, [11]; section 38 of the LTA and section 107A and schedule 1, item 1.2 of the TAA

[44] Applicant's reply to respondent's outline of submissions received at the tribunal hearing, dated 18 September 2016, page 2

[45] Applicant's reply to respondent's outline of submissions received at the tribunal hearing, dated 18 September 2016, page 2

[46] The applicants particularly referred, among other cases, to Carey & Butt v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2015] ACAT 85; Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79

[47] Applicant's reply to respondent's outline of submissions received at the tribunal hearing, dated 18 September 2016, page 4

[48] Applicant's reply to respondent's outline of submissions received at the tribunal hearing, dated 18 September 2016, page 4

[49] Submission by applicants, dated 27 July 2016, page 2

[50] Submission by applicants, dated 27 July 2016, page 13

[51] The respondent particularly referred, among other cases, to Jokhan and Jokhan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2012] ACAT 15; Scott and Anor v Commissioner of ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 73; Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2010] ACAT 15; Theron v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 33

[52] Reasons statement, 4 March 2016, page 5

[53] Reasons statement, 4 March 2016, page 5

[54] Reasons statement, 4 March 2016, page 5

[55] Reasons statement, 4 March 2016, page 7

[56] Reasons statement, 4 March 2016, page 8

[57] Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79

[58] Theron v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 33

[59] Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2010] ACAT 15

[60] Photo Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [1994] ACTAAT 91

[61] Belconnen Premier Inn Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 68

[62] Hay v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 23 at [33]

[63] Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79 at [100]

[64] Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Dataflex Pty Ltd and ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2011] ACTCA 14

[65] Applicant's reply to respondent's outline of submissions received at the tribunal hearing, dated 18 September 2016, page 4

[66] Wade & Tan v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2014] ACAT 79