The case arose when the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessed a taxpayer, who had unexplained deposits in a bank account and could not explain how he had been able to buy property and cars.
The case arose when the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessed a taxpayer, who had unexplained deposits in a bank account and could not explain how he had been able to buy property and cars.
In the tribunal the evidence was inconsistent, vague and oral.
The tribunal confirmed that:-
- the taxpayer (not the Commissioner) had to prove the assessment was excessive,
- the Commissioner is not obliged to prove an assessment is correct, and
- the test for it to consider is, "what is the balance of probabilities" when there are opposite view about certain events.
14th-October-2005 |