Two company taxpayers have been unsuccessful before the Federal Court in seeking to set aside statutory demands issued by the ATO.
The matter essentially involved two individuals who carried on property development activities through several entities (including the taxpayers) and their recollections of an alleged “global deal” with the ATO at a meeting on 10 April 2014 to resolve various debt recovery disputes – including security arrangements – while objections and appeals were on foot. The taxpayers contended that, after the meeting, the ATO sought demands that were contrary to the “deal” (this included a demand for a security in the amount of $8 million in relation to a related trust) and made “threats” to issue statutory demands. The statutory demands against the two taxpayers were issued in September 2014.
The Federal Court dismissed the taxpayers’ applications to set aside the statutory demands. The Court said it did not doubt that the individual representing the taxpayers held a “genuine subjective belief” that he and the ATO had entered into a binding legal agreement at the April 2014 meeting that went beyond the terms of the Deeds of Agreement, which were subsequently executed. However, it considered the representative’s subjective belief was not supported by either objective documentary evidence or by the evidence of the ATO representatives who attended the meeting, which it preferred. Among other things, the Court accepted the ATO’s evidence that the negotiations involved only “established debts” reflected in a spreadsheet that was used at the meeting and did not include further tax liabilities, including those of the trust.
TIP: The above case demonstrates that to avoid confusion among negotiating parties, particularly in relation to future treatment of liabilities, agreements as to arrangements and the terms must be reached and agreed to by the parties in a subsequent written Deed of Agreement.
