Won my court case against the ATO :)
- Thread starter D.T.
- Start date
Yep - my ex-BIL left the country for a holiday and the tax office cleaned out his bank accounts while he was away (timing?).
I'm with Shaneelastic on this one - great that it was sorted but wouldn't call it a win "against" the ATO. It just ended up by you doing the right thing - albeit several years to late.
well done mate.
i'm having the same head fark with them now over my 10/11 and 11/12 returns. very, very stressful.
i find it's lengthy, but you have to stick to your guns. if your story doesn't change from day 1 to final judgement, the appeals court can see this and can apply intent.
all the best
i'm having the same head fark with them now over my 10/11 and 11/12 returns. very, very stressful.
i find it's lengthy, but you have to stick to your guns. if your story doesn't change from day 1 to final judgement, the appeals court can see this and can apply intent.
all the best
Terry,
See below, the ATO can issue a 'garnishee notice' for any taxpayer owing a debt, this can be served on bank accounts, trade debtors, etc and does not require any permissions from a court.
Garnishee or Statutory Garnishee - is a term used to describe the power of the Commissioner under section 260-5 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA) to issue a notice requiring a third party to pay money to the Commissioner to meet the tax debt of another. The third party receiving the notice is required to pay to the Commissioner any monies which may be held for, owed to, or accruing to, the tax debtor. The notice issued by the Commissioner is similar to (but legally distinct from) a garnishee order issued through the courts.
The last few times I've called for random things, they keep asking for my tax return from 2001 even though I probably made a grand total of about $5000 that year. I should fill in the form from their website but I always get lazy
If this thread doesnt push the tax-lazy out of your hindbrain, nothing will
I had a situation with the ATO a couple of years back where instead of getting a refund of several thousand dollars my accountant had worked out I ended up with a bill for 10s of thousands. It was an ATO mistake, they mistook my HECS debt as PAYG interest owing. I mean seriously How do you do that?? I got a letter telling me they could garnish funds from my bank account and that got me pretty worried. Anyway, long story short my accountant sorted it out for me without too much problem and I ended up getting a refund.
Thanks Rickardo,
This reminds me many years ago I purchased a property off the plan and later received a letter from the ATO ordering me to pay the full purchase price at settlement to them instead of the vendor.
may i ask why?
I'd be guessing that the vendor owed a lot of money to the ATO.
Yep. The vendor owed something like $2mil to the ATO. I never settled on that contract so I don't know what would have happened (I was lucky enough to rescind).
Yea, I figured that was the scenario but im puzzled why they would write to you since you're not involved. As it happened you didnt complete the contract which wouldnt be an uncommon occurence - wouldnt they have been better off writing to conveyencer or to the financier to capture funds?
Prob cause it owed the builder and they builder owed the ATO. It is like the assignment of debt - bikie debt collecting 101.
wtf! really,
so you can buy one otp prop and you some how become responsible for the entire debt???
surely this isnt ethically possible that the legal system wouldnt protect
No. ATO just directed me to pay them what I owed him.
It is like me loaning you $10 and I owe X $20, X tells you to give them the $10 directly, bypassing me.
In a company sense, wouldnt registered debtors / creditors be necessary for this? As a purchaser I didn't think it was your responsibility to care what tax position the seller was in.
Following on from this, is this DD that purchases should do from now on - check the financial position of the seller to avoid the situation you had?
It would have no effect on me the purchaser. I would still pay the same money. It is just that the ATO has stepped into the shoes of the vendor and is collecting their debts.
Ouuuuuuuchhhhhh
Just did my 2012-13 tax return and its awful.
I paid 15k tax during the year via income tax. I had a few misc deductions, nothing major.
Result = Pay an additional $15k!
This is because the overturning of the 2008 decision (written about in the OP) caused the interest on the ATO debt to be refunded to me, which is taxable income.
This hardly seems fair, given
a) I didnt pay any of the interest (it just acrued on the outstanding value until the matter was resolved), nor did any interest come back to me, was just a paper transaction
b) The matter was resolved with the decision that the debt shouldnt have existed in the first place since I had a CGT exemption, therefore the interest shouldnt have existed, right?
Just did my 2012-13 tax return and its awful.
I paid 15k tax during the year via income tax. I had a few misc deductions, nothing major.
Result = Pay an additional $15k!
This is because the overturning of the 2008 decision (written about in the OP) caused the interest on the ATO debt to be refunded to me, which is taxable income.
This hardly seems fair, given
a) I didnt pay any of the interest (it just acrued on the outstanding value until the matter was resolved), nor did any interest come back to me, was just a paper transaction
b) The matter was resolved with the decision that the debt shouldnt have existed in the first place since I had a CGT exemption, therefore the interest shouldnt have existed, right?
