M J Heywood & Co
Chartered Accountant
 

Address:
Suite 407
1 Princess St.
Kew, Vic. 3101

Phone:
613 9853 1234

Fax:
613 9853 1023

Email us

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

 Latest Accounting News Service
Hot Issues
Small businesses may ‘collapse under strain of payday super’, IPA warns
ATO’s hands tied with scrapping on-hold debts, expert says
What Drives Your Business Growth and Profits?
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) shifting to firmer debt collection activity
Why employee v contractor comes down to fine print
Sharing economy reporting regime for platform operators
Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
Illegal access nets $637 million
Accessing superannuation benefits.
Does your business have a company Power of Attorney?
Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
GrantConnect
2 in 3 SMEs benefit from instant asset write-off, survey reveals
Updated guidance on R&D claims
Do you know how to recover debts?
Wheat Production by Country
Types of small business benchmarks
What is a Commercial Lease?
ATO warns advisers against suspect R&D tax claims
The year of workplace law upheaval
How to Resolve Invoice Payment Disputes
Raft of revenue tweaks in MYEFO to raise millions
The Countries that Export the Most Wine in the World
Articles archive
Quarter 4 October - December 2023
Quarter 3 July - September 2023
Quarter 2 April - June 2023
Quarter 1 January - March 2023
Quarter 4 October - December 2022
Quarter 3 July - September 2022
Quarter 2 April - June 2022
Quarter 1 January - March 2022
Quarter 4 October - December 2021
Quarter 3 July - September 2021
Quarter 2 April - June 2021
Quarter 1 January - March 2021
Quarter 4 October - December 2020
Quarter 3 July - September 2020
Quarter 2 April - June 2020
Quarter 1 January - March 2020
Quarter 4 October - December 2019
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 2 April - June 2005
Tax assessments confirmed for undisclosed business income

The increasing cost of underreporting and failing to lodge.



       


 


The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ruled that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was correct to issue tax assessments of $3.7 million and penalties of $3.3 million to a business taxpayer that had underreported its income and failed to lodge several year returns.


The taxpayer argued that it owned and rented out several Sydney properties, but did not engage in other business activities or receive the significant amounts of income that the ATO had assessed to it.


Evidence before the Tribunal showed the taxpayer made a range of expensive capital purchases, including fitness equipment, more than 30 motor vehicles, firearms and a “bomb dog”. Its bank statements included references to “consultation fees”, “gun licenses” and a “security industry register”.  A loan application suggested income 20 times what the taxpayer admitted to earning and had apparently made significant loans to related parties with no returns.


The commentary suggested that ATO was better prepared with evidence than the taxpayer.


It is hardly surprising that the Tribunal upheld the assessments and penalties issued and allowed the ATO to impose an extra 20% penalty for two of the taxpayer’s income years.


We report this case mainly to remind taxpayers about that burden of proof is theirs and disputation success can depend on case preparation and credibility.


 


AcctWeb




8th-March-2018