Skip to content
Farrell Family Lawyers
Farrell Family Lawyers
Family Law Specialists
  • Home
  • Our People
  • About Us
  • Our Expertise
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Divorce and Separation
    • Parenting Disputes
    • Property Settlements
    • Same Sex Relationships
    • Spousal Maintenance
    • Child Support Agreements
    • Financial Agreements
    • Child Relocation
    • International Child Abduction
  • Testimonials
  • Links
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Our People
  • About Us
  • Our Expertise
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Divorce and Separation
    • Parenting Disputes
    • Property Settlements
    • Same Sex Relationships
    • Spousal Maintenance
    • Child Support Agreements
    • Financial Agreements
    • Child Relocation
    • International Child Abduction
  • Testimonials
  • Links
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Passing the Buck: High Court Judgment Finds Tax Liabilities Can Be Transferred between Spouses

In its recent ruling, Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v Tomaras1, the High Court of Australia held that a wife’s $250,000 tax debt to the Australian Tax Office (“ATO”) could be assigned to her husband.

Tomaras concerned a husband and wife who were married in 1992 and separated in 2009. Throughout the marriage, the wife received several assessment notices from the Commissioner of Taxation requiring her to pay income tax, the Medicare levy, penalties and the general interest charge (GIC). The wife did not pay the amounts assessed, nor did she lodge any objections. By 9 August 2016, the wife’s liabilities to the ATO amounted to $256,078.32.

In November 2013, the husband was declared bankrupt. A month later, the wife commenced family law proceedings against the husband in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia seeking, amongst other things, that the husband be substituted for her as the debtor to the ATO.

The Commissioner of Taxation intervened in the proceedings and argued that the relevant sections of the Family Law Act did not bind the Crown, and therefore the Family Court did not have the authority to make orders affecting the wife’s tax debt.

The High Court considered the Commissioner’s objections but concluded that, under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Family Court has jurisdiction over debts owed to the Crown. The Act allows the Family Court to make an order that “payments be made … to a public authority for the benefit of a party to the marriage”.2 Moreover, it specifically empowers the Family Court to make an order “directed to a creditor of one party to a marriage to substitute the other party … to the marriage in relation to the debt owed to the creditor”.3

The court noted however that a substitution order should only be made where it is “just and equitable to do so” and not in cases where it is foreseeable that the debt would not be paid in full.

The decision in Tomaras has significant consequences for parties to family law proceedings. Spouses and de facto partners need to be mindful that they may ultimately have to bear the burden of their ex-partner’s taxation liabilities and penalties during family law proceedings.

On the plus side, the ability to substitute one spouse for another in relation to an outstanding tax liability offers a creative alternative when effecting a final property settlement. Instead of being paid out from the existing asset pool, parties may seek to have their outstanding tax liabilities resolved.

For further information on the effect of tax liabilities on your post-separation property settlement, contact one of our experienced lawyers to have an obligation free discussion at +61 3 8393 0144.

  1. [2018] HCA 62.
  2. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 80(1)(f).
  3. Ibid s 90AE(1)(b).
Share this post

Author: Mimi Oorloff

Mimi has a strong interest in children’s matters and a passion for assisting clients to reach outcomes that are focused on the best interests of the children. She was a volunteer at Women’s Legal Service and through that experience gained an understanding of the legal framework surrounding domestic violence intervention orders and child protection matters. Mimi has a passion for human rights and has volunteered for many years at refugee advocacy organisations, including Refugee Legal and the Refugee Council of Australia. Mimi has completed her Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice at the College of Law and expects to be admitted to practice in February 2019.

Post navigation

PreviousPrevious post:Tick Tock Tick Tock –Time Limits Apply in Family LawNextNext post:New Cross-Examination Ban Protects Victims of Family Violence

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

clear formPost comment

Recent Posts
  • Tick Tock Tick Tock –Time Limits Apply in Family Law
    February 17, 2019
  • Passing the Buck: High Court Judgment Finds Tax Liabilities Can Be Transferred between Spouses
    February 4, 2019
  • New Cross-Examination Ban Protects Victims of Family Violence
    December 12, 2018
  • Family Law Reforms Close in on International Child Abductors
    November 21, 2018
  • Are They Binding? Family Law Parenting and Property Orders
    September 25, 2018
  • Not Two Years and No Children – Can I Still Make A Property Settlement Claim?
    August 26, 2018
Categories
  • Cases
  • Family Court
  • Laws
Contact Us

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Phone Number

Your Message

[recaptcha]

Follow us on social
   
Farrell Family Lawyers
Copyright © 2018 Farrell Family Lawyers
Bottom Menu

Produced by Net Solutions