Category Archives: Refunds

ATO issues decision impact statement for International All Sports decision – another nail in the coffin of s 105-65?

Posted on by

On 30 September 2011 the ATO issues a Decision Impact Statement for the decision of Jessup J in International All Sports v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] FCA 824.

While the decision relates to gambling supplies and Division 126 of the GST Act, the real impact of the Decision Impact Statement is the apparent concession that the application of the Commissioner’s “discretion” to refund refunds in s 105-65 of Schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 is limited to cases where a supply or arrangement was wrongly treated as a taxable supply.  In the All Sports case, and in a number of cases involving the margin scheme, the Commissioner was arguing that the discretion extended to where a taxpayer treated a supply as taxable, but nevertheless paid too much tax (eg, because of using an incorrect valuation methodology under the margin scheme).

The basis for the Commissioner’s view was set out in MT 2010/1.  In essence, the Commissioner argued that the words “treated as a taxable supply…to any extent” in s 105-65(1)(a) were broad enough to capture circumstances where a taxpayer correctly treated a supply as taxable, but paid too much GST on that taxable supply.  The Commissioner now accepts that MT 2010/1 must be amended.  I would contend that that the majority of that ruling should be amended.

I have always regarded the view of the Commissioner as “ambitious”, to say the least.  Further, the view appears to be founded upon the belief that the Commissioner’s discretion to refuse to pay refunds under s 105-65 is to be given a broad scope of operation.  The decision of Jessup J in AllSports is arguably another nail in the coffin of that view.  As noted by Emmett J in KAP Motors Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159 (at [33]): “Section 105-65 should not be given an expansive construction.  While its object may be commendable, in seeking to avoid windfall gains for taxpayers, it is, in a sense, a paternalistic interference with the rights of taxpayers.  It proceeds on the basis that GST that should not have been paid has been paid by a taxpayer.  It operates to ensure that the Commissioner receives a windfall rather than a taxpayer.”

These sentiments were approved of by the Tribunal in Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited and Commissioner of Taxation [2010] AATA 22 (at [59), a case where the Tribunal found it appropriate that the refund be paid.  While the Commissioner did appeal that case ([2011] FCAFC 20), it is unfortunate that he did not feel the need to appeal the issue relating to s 105-65, notwithstanding his statement in the Decision Impact Statement for the Tribunal decision that it “respectfully disagreed” with the reasoning of the Tribunal.

The checkered history of s 105-65 continues.  So far it is taxpayer 3, Commissioner nil.

Federal Court forces Commissioner to pay GST refunds “forthwith”

Posted on by

The Federal Court has ordered that the Commissioner must “forthwith” pay refunds of a negative “net amount” to a taxpayer, notwithstanding that the Commissioner was conducting an investigation to establish whether the applicant relied on fraudulent tax invoices to claim input tax credits.

In Multiflex Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] FCA 112, Jessup J ordered a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner to comply with s 35-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and s 8AAZLF of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 by forthwith paying to the applicant the net amount notified in the GST return for each of the relevant tax periods.

In making the order, the Court rejected the Commissioner’s submission that the obligations to make refunds is subject to an implied proviso that those refunds need not be paid instantly, but must be complied with within a reasonable period.  In this case, the “reasonable period” would take into account the time to conduct an investigation into the tax affairs of the taxpayer, assuming that investigation was progressed with expedition.

The Court also rejected the Commissioner’s submission that the Court should not exercise the discretionary relief of mandamus because of his suspicions as to the fraudulent nature of the tax invoices and also the risks of having to seek to recover those payments from the company through the assessment process.

A more detailed analysis of this important case will follow shortly.