Yesterday the Tribunal handed down its decision in Vita Hot Bread Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 570 where the Tribunal found that the applicant had understated his income and GST in respect of a bakery and bread shop. The Tribunal did partially allow the GST objection to take into account errors made by the Commissioner. The decision is another example of the onus imposed on taxpayers to establish that GST assessments are excessive. One additional point of interest in the case flows from the following arguments raised by the taxpayer:
- During the hearing counsel for the Commissioner cross-examined the applicant about certain loan applications and the income levels stated therein. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal should infer from the failure of the Commissioner to call the broker who acted for the Applicant that the evidence would not have assisted (relying on the principles in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. The Tribunal noted the argument, but made no decision the issue. This appears to be because the applicant accepted that he lied to the bank about his income when applying for a loan.
Also, earlier this week the Commissioner issued Addendum GSTR 2000/24A2 ‘Goods and Services Tax; Division 129 – making adjustments for changes in extent of creditable purpose’. The Addendum amends GSTR 2000/24 to reflect the inclusion of Divisions 133 and 134 into the GST Act. Division 133 provides for a special decreasing adjustment for an acquisition where you provide additional consideration at a time when you can no longer claim an input tax credit. Division 134 relates to the GST treatment of certain third party payments (sometimes described as manufacturers rebates) made on or after 1 July 2010.