[2017] Wasc 161
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[2017] WASC 161 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION -v- CASLEY [2017] WASC 161 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 1 JUNE 2017 DELIVERED : 16 JUNE 2017 FILE NO/S : CIV 3132 of 2016 BETWEEN : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff AND LEONARD GEORGE CASLEY Defendant FILE NO/S : CIV 1603 of 2017 BETWEEN : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff AND ARTHUR WAYNE CASLEY Defendant Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Summary judgment - Application for summary judgment brought by plaintiff - Whether summary judgment ought to be entered - Whether jurisdiction to hear claim - Turns on own facts Document Name: WASC\CIV\2017WASC0161.doc (AH) Page 1 [2017] WASC 161 Practice and procedure - Application to set aside writ of summons - Turns on own facts Legislation: Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) Constitution (Cth), s 116 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 5-15 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 40 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), pt IVC, pt 11A, sch 1 s 350-101, sch 1 s 255-45, s 8AAZF Result: Application for summary judgment granted Application to set aside writ of summons dismissed Category: B Document Name: WASC\CIV\2017WASC0161.doc (AH) Page 2 [2017] WASC 161 Representation: CIV 3132 of 2016 Counsel: Plaintiff : Mr A J Musikanth Defendant : In person Solicitors: Plaintiff : Australian Government Solicitor Defendant : In person CIV 1603 of 2017 Counsel: Plaintiff : Mr A J Musikanth Defendant : In person Solicitors: Plaintiff : Australian Government Solicitor Defendant : In person Case(s) referred to in judgment(s): Bell Group NV (in liq) v Western Australia (2016) 331 ALR 408 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 146 Document Name: WASC\CIV\2017WASC0161.doc (AH) Page 3 [2017] WASC 161 LE MIERE J LE MIERE J: Summary 1 In CIV 3132 of 2016 the plaintiff, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, claims against the defendant, Leonard Casley for debts due and payable for income tax, interest and penalties in respect of the income years ended 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2013. Leonard Casley has entered a conditional appearance and applied for an order that the writ of summons be set aside 'for reasons of jurisdiction'. The Deputy Commissioner has applied for summary judgment. 2 In CIV 1603 of 2017 the Deputy Commissioner claims against Arthur Casley for debts due and payable for income tax, interest and penalties in respect of the income years ended 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2012. Arthur Casley has applied for an order that the writ of summons be set aside on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. The Deputy Commissioner has applied for summary judgment. 3 In each action the Deputy Commissioner's claim arises in consequence of the Deputy Commissioner issuing notices of assessment and notices of amended assessment to the defendant. Production of a notice of assessment, or an amended assessment, is conclusive evidence that the assessment was properly made and, excepting proceedings under pt IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA) on a review or appeal, that the amounts and particulars of the assessment are correct. Further, a certificate issued under s 255-45 of Schedule 1 to the TAA is prima facie evidence of the matter stated in the certificate. In CIV 3132 of 2016 the Deputy Commissioner has issued a certificate that $2,770,177.63 is due and owing by Leonard Casley at the date of the hearing. In CIV 1603 of 2017 the Deputy Commissioner has issued a certificate that $242,669.53 is due and owing by Arthur Casley at the date of hearing. 4 Each of the defendants has stated that the amounts set out in each notice of assessment, amended assessment and certificate is incorrect and the amounts stated are not due and owing. However, neither defendant has adduced any evidence in support of that contention. 5 Each of the defendants has filed an affidavit and written submissions and made oral submissions to the effect that the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or to hear the matter because they are the sovereign of, or citizen of, the Hutt River Province which is an independent sovereign state. That argument has no legal merit or Document Name: WASC\CIV\2017WASC0161.doc (AH) Page 4 [2017] WASC 161 LE MIERE J substance. Anyone can declare themselves a sovereign in their own home but they cannot ignore the laws of Australia or not pay tax. 6 Each of the defendants advances the pseudo legal straw man argument. The straw man argument has no legal merit or substance. Leonard Casley advances an argument based on the Hutt River Province being the political and financial branch of the church of Nian. That argument has no legal merit or substance. The defendants have made other assertions in their affidavits and submissions which are irrelevant and raise no defence to the claims against them. In each action the defendant has no defence to the claims by the Deputy Commissioner. In each action judgment will be entered in favour of the Deputy Commissioner against each defendant. Notices of assessment - conclusive evidence 7 As I have said, the Deputy Commissioner's claim arises from the Deputy Commissioner issuing notices of assessment and notices of amended assessment to each of the defendants. Production of a notice of assessment, or an amended assessment under a taxation law, that is an act of which the Commissioner of Taxation has the general administration, is conclusive evidence that the assessment was properly made and, excepting proceedings under pt IVC of the TAA on a review or appeal, that the amounts and particulars of the assessment are correct: TAA Schedule 1, s 350-10(1) (item 2 of the table). The effect of s 350-10 of Schedule 1 to the TAA is to confine the taxpayer to pt IVC in challenging the amount or particulars of the assessment: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Futuris Corporation Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 146 [64] - [67] where the High Court concluded that s 177 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), the predecessor of TAA s 350-10, operates as a limitation upon the evidence which may be received in proceedings other than those under pt IVC of the TAA. See also Bell Group NV (in liq) v Western Australia (2016) 331 ALR 408 where the plurality, referring to both s 177 of the ITAA 1936 and s 350-10 of the TAA, confirmed that the legal operation and practical effect of the Tax Acts is such that the production of a notice of assessment is conclusive evidence of the due making of the assessment of a taxation liability and, excepting proceedings under pt IVC of the TAA, that the amount and all the particulars of the assessment are correct [54]. 8 A copy of each relevant notice of assessment and amended assessment relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner in each action has been adduced in evidence by the Deputy Commissioner. In so far as the Document Name: WASC\CIV\2017WASC0161.doc (AH) Page 5 [2017] WASC 161 LE MIERE J Deputy Commissioner's claims relate to a RBA deficit debt relating to a Running Balance Account (RBA) the production of an RBA statement is prima facie evidence that the RBA was duly kept and the amounts and particulars in the statement are correct: TAA s 8AAZI. 9 Section 255-45 of Schedule 1 to the TAA provides that a certificate issued under that section is prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the certificate. At the hearing of these matters the Deputy Commissioner produced certificates pursuant to s 255-45 certifying that a total of $2,770,177.63 was as at 30 May 2017 due and payable by Leonard Casley to the Commonwealth and a certificate pursuant to s 255-45 certifying that a total sum of $242,669.53 was as 1 June 2017 a debt due and payable by Arthur Casley to the Commonwealth. 10 The Deputy Commissioner has established his entitlement to be paid the sums set out in the certificates. The defendants have not adduced any evidence that the debts claimed in these proceedings are not correct. The jurisdiction argument - secession 11 Each of the defendants asserts that the court has no jurisdiction over them or no jurisdiction to hear these claims. In essence, they say that the land on which they reside is part of the Principality of Hutt River which seceded from Australia and is no longer part of Australia, that they are the sovereign or a citizen of Hutt River, a sovereign independent state, they are not residents of Australia, the laws of Australia and in particular the taxation laws do not apply to them and this court has no jurisdiction over them. 12 In 1970 Leonard Casley was a wheat farmer. He was aggrieved by the wheat quotas allocated to his business. He served a notice of secession on the Western Australian Premier, the Governor, the Prime Minister and the Governor General. He also notified the Queen. Since then he has taken other steps which he believes are the acts of an independent sovereign state including declaring war on Australia. He is convinced that, in taking these steps, he succeeded in separating Hutt River from Australia. 13 Covering cl 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) (Constitution Act) relevantly provides: This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State … Document Name: WASC\CIV\2017WASC0161.doc (AH) Page 6 [2017] WASC 161 LE MIERE J This court is bound by and to give effect to the Constitution Act and to any law made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, including the TAA.