Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa

Last updated

Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Full case nameCommissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Francesco Dominico La Rosa
Decided5 June 2003
Citation(s) [2003] FCAFC 125
Case history
Prior action(s) [2002] FCA 1036
[2000] AATA 625
Appealed from Federal Court of Australia, Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Carr, Merkel & Hely JJ

Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa was a 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Australia, sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court. The court upheld two earlier rulings that Frank La Rosa, a convicted heroin dealer, was entitled to a tax deduction of $220,000 for money stolen from him during a drug deal. As a result of the decision, the federal government amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to prevent similar deductions being made.

Contents

Background

In 1996, Francesco Dominico "Frank" La Rosa was sentenced to 12 years in prison for importing heroin and possessing heroin and amphetamines with intent to distribute. He also forfeited property to the value of $264,610 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. [1] As a result of La Rosa's convictions, it came to the attention of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) that he had failed to lodge tax returns for the seven financial years from 1989–90 to 1995–96. The ATO subsequently issued notices of assessment for those years, based on information provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about La Rosa's activities. His assessed taxable income included both legally and illegally obtained income, as Australian taxation law does not distinguish between the two. His assessed income for the 1994–95 period included a sum of $220,000 cash that had been stolen from him during a botched drug deal. The money "was accumulated from drug dealings and had been buried in the taxpayer's backyard". [2]

La Rosa appealed the inclusion of the $220,000 in his assessable income. Appearing pro se , he argued that the money had been provided to him by the Australian Federal Police as part of his role in a sting operation, and was thus not income. [3] The Commissioner of Taxation rejected his argument, which La Rosa raised again on appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT reaffirmed the earlier conclusion that the money should be treated as assessable income, dismissing any notion of police involvement. However, acting "as a matter of procedural fairness as the taxpayer had little tax knowledge and was representing himself", the tribunal concluded that the stolen money met the general deduction provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA36), and thus could be deducted from La Rosa's taxable income. The ATO appealed to the Federal Court, where in 2002 Judge Robert Nicholson upheld the AAT's ruling. The Federal Court ruling brought the case to the attention of the public, provoking "an immediate public and political storm". [4] The ATO was subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court. [5]

Final ruling

The three-member Full Court of the Federal Court upheld the earlier rulings, finding that La Rosa was entitled to deduct the $220,000 in full. [6] The main issue considered by the court was the deductibility of expenses incurred by an illegal business. [5] The leading judgment in the case was given by Justice Peter Hely, who observed:

The purpose of the ITAA is to tax taxable income, not punish wrongdoing. [...] There should not be a higher burden of taxation imposed on those whose business activities are unlawful than that imposed in relation to lawful business activities. Punishment of those who engage in unlawful activities is imposed by the criminal law, and not by the laws in relation to income tax. [7]

The court first considered whether the sum had correctly been included in La Rosa's assessable income. It noted a substantial precedent that "the illegal nature of a receipt does not deny its taxability", as the ITAA made no distinction between income derived from legal and illegal activities. It therefore upheld the AAT's initial ruling that the $220,000 formed part of La Rosa's assessable income. The court observed that exempting illegally obtained revenue from taxation would "favour dishonest businesses over honest ones". [8] The court also ruled that La Rosa's operations, although illegal, nonetheless constituted a "business" within the ITAA definition. [9]

Section 51(1) of the ITAA allowed taxpayers to deduct losses "incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income", with some exceptions. Section 51(2) specifically allowed for the deduction of "expenditure incurred or deemed to have been incurred in the purchase of stock used by the taxpayer as trading stock". [10] [lower-alpha 1] In ruling that the stolen money constituted a "loss", the court applied the 1956 High Court decision in Charles Moore (WA) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, where a deduction was allowed for money that had been stolen from a business while being taken to a bank. [12] The cash was stolen from La Rosa "during operations to acquire trading stock" (specifically, a "substantial supply of prohibited drugs"). [13] Because of this, the court upheld the AAT's original decision that the loss had a direct connection with the business operations and therefore fell under the general deduction provisions. As with income, the ITAA did not expressly prohibit deductions for expenses incurred in illegal activities. [2]

The ATO submitted that the court should adopt a "purposive" rather than a literal approach to interpreting the ITAA's deduction provisions, as the ITAA contained sections barring deductions for fines, penalties, and bribes. [5] It argued that, based on these existing "public-policy" exceptions, the unexpressed intent of the legislation was to prohibit deductions relating to illegal activities; the court should consequently read into the legislation an implied prohibition on claiming those deductions. [14] The court rejected this submission on the grounds that a non-literal interpretation of the deduction provisions would be inconsistent with other areas of the ITAA and would cause uncertainty among taxpayers. It stated that it was the role of the legislature to determine public-policy exceptions to the deduction provisions, not that of the courts. [15]

Aftermath

The ATO sought leave to appeal to the High Court, the final court of appeal in the Australian legal system. In October 2004, the High Court announced that it had refused the appeal. [16] In April 2005, Treasurer Peter Costello announced that the federal government would amend Australian tax law to deny deductions "incurred in the furtherance of, or directly in relation to, activities in respect of which the taxpayer has been convicted of an indictable offence". It did so by adding section 26-54 to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 . [17]

In June 2008, La Rosa and his wife Kim were reported missing. Their bodies were found in Chittering, Western Australia, in January 2009, and in 2011 Frank Mikhail and his son Adam were convicted of their murders. They were sentenced to life in prison. [18] [19]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Section 51(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is now defunct and has been replaced by section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 . However, the events of La Rosa's case took place under the 1936 act. [11]

Related Research Articles

Taxation in the United States

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP. The United States had the seventh-lowest tax revenue-to-GDP ratio among OECD countries in 2020, with a higher ratio than Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Ireland, Costa Rica, and Turkey.

An income tax is a tax imposed on individuals or entities (taxpayers) in respect of the income or profits earned by them. Income tax generally is computed as the product of a tax rate times the taxable income. Taxation rates may vary by type or characteristics of the taxpayer and the type of income.

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and tax credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions, and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

Under United States tax law, itemized deductions are eligible expenses that individual taxpayers can claim on federal income tax returns and which decrease their taxable income, and is claimable in place of a standard deduction, if available.

A pay-as-you-earn tax (PAYE), or pay-as-you-go (PAYG) in Australia, is a withholding of taxes on income payments to employees. Amounts withheld are treated as advance payments of income tax due. They are refundable to the extent they exceed tax as determined on tax returns. PAYE may include withholding the employee portion of insurance contributions or similar social benefit taxes. In most countries, they are determined by employers but subject to government review. PAYE is deducted from each paycheck by the employer and must be remitted promptly to the government. Most countries refer to income tax withholding by other terms, including pay-as-you-go tax.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is an Australian statutory agency and the principal revenue collection body for the Australian Government. The ATO has responsibility for administering the Australian federal taxation system, superannuation legislation, and other associated matters. Responsibility for the operations of the ATO are within the portfolio of the Treasurer of Australia and the Treasury.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal government, and most states. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

Income tax in Australia is imposed by the federal government on the taxable income of individuals and corporations. State governments have not imposed income taxes since World War II. On individuals, income tax is levied at progressive rates, and at one of two rates for corporations. The income of partnerships and trusts is not taxed directly, but is taxed on its distribution to the partners or beneficiaries. Income tax is the most important source of revenue for government within the Australian taxation system. Income tax is collected on behalf of the federal government by the Australian Taxation Office.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is an act of the Parliament of Australia. It is one of the main statutes under which income tax is calculated. The act is gradually being rewritten into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and new matters are generally now added to the 1997 act.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is an act of the Parliament of Australia.

<i>Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1977 High Court of Australia case concerning a novel tax scheme whereby some 5,000 university students became primary producers for tax purposes, allowing them certain income averaging benefits. The Australian Taxation Office held this was tax avoidance, but the test case was decided in favour of the taxpayer, one of the students, Brian Cridland.

Income taxes in Canada constitute the majority of the annual revenues of the Government of Canada, and of the governments of the Provinces of Canada. In the fiscal year ending 31 March 2018, the federal government collected just over three times more revenue from personal income taxes than it did from corporate income taxes.

<i>Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody was a 1994 High Court of Australia tax case concerning certain transactions made by the Peabody family business. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sought to apply the Part IVA general anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

Under the United States taxation system, an enterprise may deduct business expenses from its taxable income, subject to certain conditions. On occasion the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has challenged such deductions, regarding the activities in question as illegitimate, and in certain circumstances the Internal Revenue Code provides for such challenge. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have in general upheld the deductions, where there is not a specific governmental policy in support of disallowing them.

Internal Revenue Code § 212 provides a deduction, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, for expenses incurred in investment activities. Taxpayers are allowed to deduct

all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year--

Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, is part of United States taxation law. It concerns deductions for business expenses. It is one of the most important provisions in the Code, because it is the most widely used authority for deductions. If an expense is not deductible, then Congress considers the cost to be a consumption expense. Section 162(a) requires six different elements in order to claim a deduction. It must be an

Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney's fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.

Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.

In international taxation, a physical presence test is a rule used to determine tax residence of a natural or legal person. It may rely on having a place of business in the jurisdiction, or remaining in or out of the jurisdiction for a certain number of days each year.

References

  1. ↑ Lund 2003, p. 117.
  2. 1 2 Lund 2003, p. 118.
  3. ↑ Shanahan 2003, p. 63.
  4. ↑ Hill 2003, p. 71.
  5. 1 2 3 Shanahan 2003, p. 65.
  6. ↑ "Heroin dealer allowed to claim tax deduction". The Sydney Morning Herald . 6 June 2003. Retrieved 24 December 2018.
  7. ↑ Lund 2003, p. 121.
  8. ↑ Lund 2003, p. 120.
  9. ↑ Gupta 2008, p. 113.
  10. ↑ Lund 2003, p. 116.
  11. ↑ Lund 2003, p. 115.
  12. ↑ Gupta 2008, p. 121.
  13. ↑ Gupta 2008, p. 122.
  14. ↑ Gupta 2008, p. 124.
  15. ↑ Shanahan 2003, p. 66.
  16. ↑ Nott, Holly (28 October 2004). "Drug dealer beats taxman in court". The Age . Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  17. ↑ Costello, Peter (29 April 2005). "Income tax deductions to be denied for illegal activities". Department of the Treasury. Archived from the original on 12 February 2014. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
  18. ↑ Styles, Aja (22 June 2011). "Father, son get 37 years for La Rosa drug dealer murders". WAtoday . Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  19. ↑ Thomson, Chris; Barnes, Lisa (18 November 2008). "Drug dealer La Rosa believed murdered". WAtoday . Retrieved 12 December 2018.
Sources
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.