Page 3429 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
For the ACT Commissioner for Revenue to have the right, which the Chief Minister is proposing to give him, to reassess anybody virtually for as long as he cares to exercise his authority to do so, even beyond the six-year period during which the taxpayer is obliged to maintain his records under existing law, is an absurdity. I pointed out before that it was lacking in social justice, apart from anything else, and I think that the Chief Minister would be very concerned that that might be so.
I ask members to consider my amendment honestly and to have regard for the interests of the taxpayer. The Revenue Commissioner has at his command all the resources that he chooses to have. If he does not want to seek further inspectors and examiners to do the job, why should the taxpayer suffer the penalty? It is the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioner to determine whether an assessment is right or wrong. If he cannot do it in four years, I submit that he is not doing his job. He should not be given five, six, seven or eight years, depending on how long he might like to take to exercise the option that is available to him. I do not agree with it. I think that it is a reasonable thing to put a four-year limit on it. In any case, as I have explained, that is consistent with Commonwealth law. As I said during my speech in the in-principle debate, if the Commonwealth can satisfy its obligations in four years, in my view, there is no reason why the ACT Commissioner for Revenue cannot do the same. So, I ask members to consider this very carefully and not give the Revenue Commissioner and the Treasurer unlimited power to do whatever they consider to be right and proper at any time when they feel inclined to take the action. They should have a time limit on them. Four years is a reasonable time.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (8.19): Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat my opposition to Mr Kaine's amendment. I do not know whether Mr Kaine realises it; but, as I understand his amendment, it would actually reduce from six years to four years the period of time in which a refund of an overpaid assessment may be made to a taxpayer. I do not see how that in any way extends a favour to the taxpayers who may have been overassessed. For that reason alone, I believe that the Assembly ought to be satisfied with the Bill as it is currently drafted. It clearly gives the taxpayer that six-year period in which to get a refund, rather than the four years which Mr Kaine's amendment would envisage.
Madam Speaker, it might be helpful if I were to read out part of the Commonwealth's tax arrangements which Mr Kaine has quoted from. Section 170, headed "Amendment of assessments", reads:
(1) The Commissioner may, subject to this section, at any time amend any assessment by making such alterations therein or additions thereto as he thinks necessary, notwithstanding that tax may have been paid in respect of the assessment.
... ... ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .