The accuracy of the content is not guaranteed. Please rely only on the authorised document. Taxpayers paying for advice promoted by the Institute of Taxation Research that Australia's tax laws are invalid and that the ATO does not legally exist are being seriously misled, Tax Commissioner Michael Carmody warned today. "I am concerned that people are being misled for profit. Some taxpayers are looking to avoid or lessen their tax obligations by paying for advice that all Commonwealth law, including tax law, is invalid and therefore they have no tax obligations," Mr Carmody said. "We warned taxpayers about relying on such advice over a year ago and a spate of recent court decisions have blasted such arguments finding them 'nonsense' and 'utterly hopeless' "People who rely on such blatantly farcical advice will find they have not only wasted their time and money but may also face prosecution and heavy penalties," Mr Carmody said. Decisions in the High Court, the Federal Court and the Supreme Courts of Queensland and South Australia have all rubbished the arguments put forward, variously describing them as: 'spurious', 'manifestly untenable', 'nonsense', 'an abuse of process' and 'utterly hopeless'. In the most recent case, before the Supreme Court of South Australia, Chief Justice Doyle took the unusual measure of awarding costs against the Institute of Taxation Research Pty Ltd (ITR) despite the fact they were not initially a party to the case. "In my view there has been an abuse of process by ITR in encouraging the commencement and continuation of this action when it should have been clear that the prospects of success, were non-existent," said Chief Justice Doyle. Chief Justice Doyle also severely criticised the taxpayer's solicitor for allowing his company to rely on such spurious advice even though the solicitor admitted during the case he knew the arguments would fail. A number of judges have raised questions about the ethics of legal representatives who raise these arguments. The Institute of Taxation Research is a private company not a tax professional association. The following case references will provide more detail:
|
