it’s been explained a number of times here but the rampers just don’t seem to get it? (or don’t want to?)
that’s simply how litigation is initiated when there is a tax dispute - the ATO conducted their investigation, found a number of alleged breaches (which seem pretty blatant from the court docs and reporting) and they then issue an amended assessment.. if the taxpayer disagrees then they initiate the court action as applicant disputing the assessment.. the ATO never initiates that first court action
the ATO initiated action was re the travel ban when he was allegedly found attempting to leave the country without notifying (as he was obliged to? again not a good look on the face of it).. those actions in practice are only settled once sufficient security is lodged, and there’s been nothing suggested here that it’s any different
now the can appears to be being kicked down the road and a bunch of delays caused by SP1’s tardiness in responding to subpoenas..? where have we seen that tactic before and how did that litigation end up? I guess there’s a lot going on at SP1 HQ and it must be difficult for them to decide which ATO stuff to focus on (the shareholder class ruling which is now comically late, or the former boss’s ATO case?)
