Page 3423 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a little difficult to hear Mr Kaine with the chats going on at the side of the chamber.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Stevenson. I think that point of order has been noted.
MR KAINE: The Bill establishes no criteria by which to measure the commissioner's dissatisfaction or the burden impeding the taxpayer's compliance with normal deadlines. In other words, it is totally subjective. It makes a refusal or a revocation appealable; but it does not give the commissioner, the taxpayer or, for that matter, the tribunal a set of specific parameters by which the Government wishes the fairness or justification of the decision to be measured. The Bill delivers a rabbit punch to taxpayers who are not versed in the details of the law, who are not sure of their rights under it or their rights before the tribunal and who believe that "fair" means fair. Without decision making criteria, the Bill makes it too easy for the commissioner to express a decision in such a way that the tribunal has to find it "fair" even though the appellant argues otherwise. The Bill should recognise this by explaining what the Government expects of taxpayers who are seeking so simple a concession as an extension of time in which to tell the commissioner how much money they think they owe the Territory. I do not believe that that is draconian. The Chief Minister and Treasurer should have another look at that.
I do not say that the proposed subsections 12B(1) to (3) and 12B(5) cannot work; but I do say that they contain the seeds of conflict, unnecessary delay and expense to the taxpayer and the commissioner alike, with no assurance of increased revenue to the Territory at the end of the day. In fact, in the explanatory memorandum, the Treasurer makes the point that they do not expect to increase their revenues as a result of this Bill. But they are putting a lot of hurdles in the way of the taxpayer and, I believe, of the commissioner. The Government has shown no grounds on which to justify the kinds of incomplete and capricious provisions embodied in proposed subsection 12B(6). The Bill should clarify where the taxpayer stands, regardless of whether the period between revocation of an extension and the deadline for lodging the next return is greater or less than the Bill's provision of three weeks. That is another matter that, I believe, the Treasurer should review.
The matter which is of greatest concern is paragraph 5(a), which proposes to increase from three to six years the period in which the commissioner may amend an assessment. One of the few good things for taxpayers that the Bill could offer would be to apply this increase to the time in which the commissioner may amend an assessment to correct an overpayment of tax; but I gather that this will not be the case. The increase to six years in the period in which an assessment can be carried out will not apply equally to the cases where additional tax is owed to the Territory and to instances where refunds are due to taxpayers. At present, the commissioner is unable to provide a refund of tax where instances of excessive tax payments have occurred over three years. I have taken those words from information provided by the Minister's office. I think that the last bit means "more than three years ago".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .