the ATO have a fairly well understood methodology for calculating interest and penalties.. the interest rate is published regularly.. the penalties are determined on a sliding scale based on the level of non-compliance (in the ATO's view):
- 25% failure to take reasonable care
- 50% recklessness
- 75% intentional disregard
you can argue / negotiate around which category the shortfall of tax falls in - but for the ATO to go at intentional disregard level is of note, and means they would be feeling pretty confident of the primary tax.. if there were tax technical issues at play it would purely be litigation on the primary tax + interest (the ATO don't bother attempting to applying penalties where there are genuine questions to the application of the law)thanks - that actually explains a lot.. and is really simple really, the freezing covers the shares in Select All and steps cannot be taken to reduce the value of that investment or assets it holds (both ISX and ISXFEU).. actually it allows for the dealing in assets, provided the total amount of assets covered by the freeze order remains above the $10m assessment - seems reasonable
sure, the timing of the application was around the demerger, and the ATO sought to stop All Select and Red5 from voting, but the clear intention is to stop assets of value being transacted if it will impact the ATO's ability to collect the $10m.. the ATO have this protection, without needing to have ISX or ISXFEU specifically mentioned in the freezing order
what all the noise is in the hearings I expect will be largely irrelevant, smoke and mirrors / attempts to deflect.. if you don't want to be subject to a freeze order then stump up half of the amount at stake (as is the common custom) or a guarantee/security.. simples.. then have your day in court on the tax argument
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?