R v Pratten (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1672

R v Pratten (No 9) [2012] NSWSC 1672

A dishonest deception that misleads the Australian Taxation Office as to the objective facts necessary to finalise an assessment is capable of giving rise to a financial advantage under s 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The fact that tax is owing on objectively ascertained income, or that the advantage may later be corrected by assessment, interest or penalties, does not prevent the reduction of tax payable under a self-assessment return from being a financial advantage obtained by deception. The directed verdict application was therefore rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Proceedings / Application for a Directed Verdict Immediately Prior to Addresses
Outcome
Application for a directed verdict rejected.
Legal Topics
['directed Verdict' 'no Case to Answer' 'obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'false Income Tax Return' 'temporary Financial Advantage']
['criminal Law' 'taxation'] ['directed Verdict' 'no Case to Answer' 'obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'false Income Tax Return' 'temporary Financial Advantage']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Interlocutory Proceedings / Application for a Directed Verdict Immediately Prior to Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the charges under s 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) were incapable of proof because a false income tax return could not amount to obtaining a financial advantage where tax liability is determined by statute on objectively ascertained income.' 'Whether any financial advantage alleged from understating income in a tax return was too temporary to constitute a financial advantage.' 'Whether the defendant could bring the directed verdict application at the stage when his case had closed and immediately before addresses.']

Ratio Decidendi

A dishonest deception that misleads the Australian Taxation Office as to the objective facts necessary to finalise an assessment is capable of giving rise to a financial advantage under s 134.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The fact that tax is owing on objectively ascertained income, or that the advantage may later be corrected by assessment, interest or penalties, does not prevent the reduction of tax payable under a self-assessment return from being a financial advantage obtained by deception. The directed verdict application was therefore rejected.

Court Disposition

Application for a directed verdict rejected.

Orders

  • ['Application for a directed verdict is rejected.']