- Family Law
- Lawyers & Staff
- Cases & Articles
- Contact Us
NOTICE ALERT IN LIGHT OF COVID-19
WHAT WE PROPOSE AND HOW WE CAN ASSIST
At Watson & Watson our clients come first. Please be assured of our continued dedicated services to all current and new clients.
As we have done in the past, we will continue to offer alternative conferencing methods ie video conferencing, skype or telephone conferences. Reviewing of all documentation provided to us prior to any initial conference will be all inclusive of our set fee. Do not hesitate to contact Shereen Da Gloria on (02) 9221 6011 should you have any concerns.
In James & Snipper & Anor (namely Commissioner for Taxation) (2018) FAMCAFC 235 3 December 2018 the Full Court of the Family Court on an Appeal from the original Decision considered the apportionment of the taxation obligations of the separated spouses, namely Husband and Wife, and a claim by the Commissioner of Taxation for payment of outstanding taxation due by the Husband.
The facts were:
Many issues arose in this case.
The Primary Judge found:
The Commissioner argued that the appropriate amount to be paid by the Wife to the Commissioner in partial payment of the Taxation Liability of the Husband was $600,000.
The Trial Judge ordered that the Wife pay to the Commissioner the full amount of her taxation debt of approximately $113,000 from her share of the net property and ordered the Wife to pay $200,000 (effectively from her allocated assets as referred to above) to the Commissioner in partial discharge of the Husband’s debts outstanding taxation debt.
The Trial Judge found the Wife received substantial benefit from the Husband post separation. The Husband’s failure to pay his taxation liabilities enabled the Wife to enjoy a handsome lifestyle even after separation from the Husband.
The effect of the Court’s decision was that:
The Husband Appealed on numerous grounds in relation to Property matters. There was also a separate Appeal in relation to Children matters. The Full Court of the Family Court dismissed the Appeal and found against the Husband and the Commissioner as to the allocation of the assets between the Husband and Wife and the obligation of the Wife to pay further moneys to the Commissioner of Taxation to reduce the taxation liability of the Husband.
The Trial Judge did not provide the basis of the calculation as to the $200,000. One of the bases for Appeal was that the Trial Judge did not provide adequate reasons to explain why the Wife was ordered to contribute $200,000 and not some higher figure of the taxation debt owed by the Husband to the Tax Commissioner. This was dismissed. Part of the basis for dismissal was that the Commissioner did not provide adequate reasons as to why the Courts at the first instance should have ordered that $600,000 be paid.
The Full Court of the Family Court noted the Trial Judge eventually settled on the figure of $200,000 as payable by the Wife because the sum represented about 10% of the Husband’s entire Taxation Debt and about 18% of the Wife’s Assets (once she had paid her own Taxation Debt). The Full Court held that the process fulfilled the requirements of sufficient reasons in accordance with the Authorities sighted by the Husband. The Full Court found it was unnecessary for the Trial Judge to synthesize every fact and every Submission to rationally explain the outcome.
There were also other issues on appeal.
Each of these matters were dismissed by the Full Court on Appeal.
This does raise the issue as to what is the appropriate Order when Liabilities exceed the total Assets available for distribution as between the Husband and Wife.
In this particular case the Order was such that the Wife received Net assets and the Husband was left in a position of having a net liability in particular to the Commissioner of Taxation.
There are many lessons to be learnt from this particular case. This is not the first case, nor will it be the last, that one spouse has failed to pay income tax and each of the parties have received Financial Support as a result thereof. Different conduct by the parties would probably have led to a different outcome.
Watson & Watson are highly experienced in relation to Family Law and Commercial matters. There are many matters that we have provided second opinion/s and assisted a party to solve their particular issue. Debt by one or both parties can hinder or prolong an equitable outcome when it comes to financial/property settlement. Please contact Richard Watson Senior Family Law Solicitor or his Personal Assistant Shereen Da Gloria to discuss your matter and seek timely advice.
This is only a preliminary view and is not to be taken as legal advice without first contacting Watson & Watson Solicitors on 9221 6011.
Personal Experienced Professional Affordable
Phone 02 9221 6011Send us your enquiry