Commissioner of Taxation v Bosanac [2016] FCA 448

Commissioner of Taxation v Bosanac [2016] FCA 448

The Bosanacs failed to establish any reasonable prospect of proving conscious maladministration amounting to jurisdictional error in the assessment process. The errors and issues raised by the respondents, taken at their highest, did not reach the stringent threshold of bad faith or deliberate maladministration required by law. The statutory framework provides avenues for objection and appeal, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement for contestability. As such, the statutory presumptions in favour of the Commissioner and the absence of any viable defence justified the grant of summary judgment.

Parties
Applicant: Commissioner of Taxation; First Respondent: Vlado Bosanac; Second Respondent: Bernadette Bosanac
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Tax Recovery Proceeding / Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the applicant against both respondents.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Jurisdictional Error, Conscious Maladministration, Amended Assessments, Objection Process, Bankruptcy Effect on Contestability, Discovery and Production
Administrative Law Taxation Constitutional Law Practice and Procedure Summary Judgment Jurisdictional Error Conscious Maladministration Amended Assessments +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Taxation

Applicant

Vlado Bosanac

First Respondent

Bernadette Bosanac

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tax Recovery Proceeding / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended assessments were affected by conscious maladministration or jurisdictional error
  2. 2 Whether there is any reasonable prospect that the respondents could defend the summary judgment application
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment would render the assessments incontestable in violation of constitutional requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Bosanacs failed to establish any reasonable prospect of proving conscious maladministration amounting to jurisdictional error in the assessment process. The errors and issues raised by the respondents, taken at their highest, did not reach the stringent threshold of bad faith or deliberate maladministration required by law. The statutory framework provides avenues for objection and appeal, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement for contestability. As such, the statutory presumptions in favour of the Commissioner and the absence of any viable defence justified the grant of summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the applicant against both respondents.

Orders

  • Vlado Bosanac to pay $9,344,111.89 to the applicant for income tax, shortfall interest charge, administrative penalties and general interest charge accrued to 1 December 2015.
  • Bernadette Bosanac to pay $5,696,983.19 to the applicant for the same categories, subject to entry of judgment being deferred for 14 days.