The Directors of Kim Wilson & Co Family Lawyers are pleased to announce the appointment of Sarah Brown and Dianne Caruso as Senior Associates of the Firm. We congratulate both Sarah and Dianne on their achievements. Sarah’s profile can be viewed here as can Dianne’s.
The post Appointment of Senior Associates appeared first on Kim Wilson Family Lawyers.
On 12 March 2019 at a Legalwise Seminar in Perth our Kim Wilson SC, Robyn Hadley and Adam Somerville-Brown gave a presentation to other lawyers on the topic of “How to Arbitrate and Mediate: a Practical Guide”. The areas covered included:
Requirements to consider alternate avenues of resolution of disputes.
The merits and misconceptions of arbitration.
Costs benefit analysis of litigation as against alternate dispute resolution options.
Step by step guide for arbitration including the arbitration agreement.
Mediation and practical considerations.
Mediation is a process where a trained person (the Mediator) helps the parties to a dispute, to negotiate a resolution to their dispute. The Mediation Lawyer does this by facilitating discussions, and by assisting the parties to identify issues and concerns and to help them identify and explore options to resolve their dispute.
All of our Family and Divorce Lawyers are qualified to carry out Mediation services and represent you in these sessions.
Kim Wilson SC, Linda Richardson and Robyn Hadley are Nationally Accredited Mediators (AIFLAM) and are available to accept instructions to act as a Mediator.
Kim Wilson SC is also a qualified Arbitrator in family matters and is available to receive instructions to act as an Arbitrator in Family Law matters.
For more information with respect to our Mediation and Arbitration services, please contact our office on 6380 3900 or email [email protected].
The post Arbitrations and Mediations appeared first on Kim Wilson Family Lawyers.
Commissioner of Taxation v Tomaras
Tax debts of the parties to a marriage or de facto relationship are usually either retained by the party who has the debt or otherwise paid out of the parties’ combined asset pool as part of a final property settlement.
Under section 90AE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court has the power to make Orders to substitute one party to a relationship for the other party’s debt. The substituted party then becomes responsible for discharging the debt.
In the recent High Court decision of Commissioner of Taxation v Tomaras [2018] HCA 62, the Court considered whether it had the power to order the Husband to be substituted for the Wife with respect to a tax debt owed by the Wife.
Background
By way of background, the parties were married in 1992 and separated in 2009. During the marriage, the Commissioner issued an assessment against the Wife regarding income tax and Medicare levies.
In late 2009, the Commissioner obtained a default judgement against the Wife in the sum of $256,078. The Wife failed to pay the judgement debt.
In late 2013, the Husband became bankrupt. Shortly thereafter, the Wife commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court seeking Orders to alter the interests of the parties pursuant to s79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
In February 2016 the Commissioner was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings.
The Wife sought an order pursuant to s 90AE(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to replace the Husband for herself as the debtor.
Decision
The Full Court of the Family Court concluded the Court did have jurisdiction to order that the Commissioner replace the Husband for the Wife in relation to the Wife’s tax debt.
In the case stated, the High Court unanimously upheld the decision of the Full Court. However, the High Court maintained in its judgment a court must be satisfied it is appropriate to make such an order:
“The difficulties for any court faced with a request, in relation to a debt owed to the Commonwealth under a taxation law, that it make an order under s 90AE(1) that one party to the marriage be substituted for the other party as the debtor are that these (and other) aspects of the taxation law would appear to prevent a court being satisfied of the two matters identified in s 90AE(3)(b) and (d) – that it is not foreseeable that making the order would result in the debt not being paid in full; and that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
The fact that the husband in this appeal was bankrupt is reason enough not to make the order sought by the wife under s 90AE. But there are other facts, matters and circumstances which compel the same conclusion in this appeal: the inability of the husband to exercise the Pt IVC rights of objection and review (both because the time allowed to the wife for objections has long expired, and because of the difficulties identified above); the fact that the debt owed to the Commonwealth, in relation to which the Commissioner has obtained default judgment, is long overdue; and the fact that the size of that Commonwealth debt continues to increase, not just on a daily basis, but at a higher rate, because of the accruing GIC. That list is not and cannot be exhaustive. However, those facts and matters, or even some of them, compel the conclusion that a court could not be satisfied of the matters prescribed in s 90AE(3) and, therefore, the court would not be empowered to make a substitution order under s 90AE(1) in Pt VIIIAA.”
Importantly, the High Court also noted that “there will seldom, if ever, be occasion to exercise that power and adversely affect the commissioner or other creditors”.
Angela Hayes I Lawyer
E: [email protected]
The post High Court decision of Commissioner of Taxation v Tomaras [2018] HCA 62 appeared first on Kim Wilson Family Lawyers.
Access only for law firms who belong to the