On 18 May 2020, the Commissioner made some new decisions which did not resolve any of the appeal points. So the proceeding continued and an amended notice of appeal was filed to deal with aspects of the 18 May 2020 decisions. Insofar as there is material before me which was not before the Commissioner, the parties were agreed that I should continue to hear the matter rather than further remit it to the Commissioner - t 1-5. There was no oral evidence before me. By agreement the parties did not take any Browne v Dunn points. I record that, because the matter was contentious for so long, the Commissioner’s delegate changed from time to time which accounts for my using pronouns appropriate to different genders throughout this judgment. Nature of this Appeal Bowskill J gave a very helpful exposition of the authorities bearing on the nature of an appeal under s 69 of the TAA in Wakefield & Ors v Commissioner of State Revenue.[1] Her conclusions were as follows:“[30] The nature of an appeal to the Supreme Court under s 69 of the Taxation Administration Act is a rehearing (more aptly, a fresh hearing, as no hearing has previously taken place), conducted by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction, on the materials that were before the Commissioner, subject to the power of the Court to admit new evidence under s 70B(1). It was registered on 24 January 2014.” (my underlining) [46] In explanation of paragraph 7 in the above quotation, it is relevant to consider that even though one or more appellants bore an onus of persuading the Commissioner, first to state of satisfaction required by s 74(2), and then to exercise her discretion, they provided almost no information about any of their companies in the group. Similarly, in letters which one or more appellants wrote in support of exclusion applications they made bland assertions with no substantiation by reference to facts, accounting materials, time periods etc. The earlier investigation exit letter explained that this decision was made as a result of Oakdale’s intentional disregard of its obligations under tax laws to provide information and documents pursuant to a notice issued under s 87 of TAA.

The plaintiff's appeal of a dismissal was dismissed.