As a useful reminder of scope for action by the ACCC regarding making money from pseudolaw in ACCC v Institute of Taxation Research Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1366 the Court declarted that the first respondent (the Institute) and second respondent (Wayne Levick) breached the then Trade Practices Act by making false claims in connection with the supply or possible supply or the promotion of taxation advice and consultancy services.
Those claims included
(a) that the Australian legal system has no basis in law;
(b) that the Australian Constitution is invalid;
(c) that there is no basis in law for the exercise of the legislative powers of the state and federal Parliaments;
(d) that there is no basis in law for the exercise of the executive powers of Australian governments; and
(e) that Australian taxation legislation is invalid; and that arguments leading to those conclusions can be successfully advanced and relied upon by persons who acquire its services to avoid payment of taxes, or to defend or challenge proceedings for the recovery of taxes imposed by a Commonwealth or State authority, without also informing those persons that: (i) none of the conclusions of law referred to above has been held to be correct by any Australian Court; (ii) in each of the cases listed in schedule 1 to these orders which had been decided by the time the representation was made, arguments made to establish those conclusions of law were unsuccessful and the persons advancing those arguments did not obtain the relief they sought and/or were unsuccessful in avoiding payment or recovery of the taxes; (iii) individuals, companies and other entities who do not pay their tax liability when it is due and payable may be liable for additional charges under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; (iv) the Commissioner of Taxation or Deputy Commissioner of Taxation has brought and will bring proceedings against persons who do not pay their tax liability when it is due and payable. The consequences of such proceedings may include liability to pay legal costs (in addition to penalties and interest) and may result in bankruptcy or winding up proceedings if the tax due remains unpaid; has engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, contrary to section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (“the Act”), and has represented that its services have uses or benefits they do not have, contrary to section 53(c) of the Act.
The Court ordered that the respondents be restrained from making representations, in trade or commerce, to any person, expressly or by implication, including representations made via the internet, to the effect that claims were are correct.
The Court provided a list of cases where such nonsensical claims had been unsuccessful
1. Batten v Police [1998] SASC 6588
2. Law Partners Mortgages Pty Ltd v Damien Harold Walsh [1998] QSC 4197/1998
3. Batten v Police [1998] SASC 6778
4. Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Errol John White [1998] FCA 850
5. Walsh and Anor v Professional Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor [1998] QCA 5591/1998 5592/1998
6. Professional Nominees Pty Ltd v Walsh and Anor; Law Partners Mortgages Pty Ltd v Walsh [1998] QCA 5591/1998 5592/1998
7. Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Errol John White; Errol John White v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [1998] FCA 1538
8. Joosse and Another v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (1998) 159 ALR 260
9. In the matter of An Ex Parte Application by Wolter Joosse & Jacqueline Yvonne Joosse for Leave to Issue a Proceedings (1999) 162 ALR 128
10. Deputy Registrar of Child Support v David Samuel Lamont [1999] NSWLC 209/1999
11. McClure v Australian Electoral Commission (1999) 163 ALR 734
12. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hoperidge Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 5876/1999, 5261/1999
13. Re Kevjen Pty Ltd [1999] QSC S6694/1999
14. In the matter of the Corporations Law; In the matter of the Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 6693/1999
15. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ingram; Ford v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] QDC 1428/1999
16. Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 166 ALR 302 17. Goldsette Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] QSC 6135/1999
18. R v Sheehan (1999) 153 FLR 326 19. Poonon Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] NSWSC 1121
20. Andy’s Auto Rentals Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] QSC 9808/1999
21. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Levick (1999) 168 ALR 383
22. D Thomas & Co Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] QSC 367 (10 December 1999)
23. Money Tree Management Services Pty Ltd v The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 1) (2000) 44 ATR 48
24. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sockhill [2000] QDC 4786/1999
25. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v D Thomas & Co [2000] QSC 1834/2000
26. Greer v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] HCA S33/1999
27. Wolter Joosse and Coadys (A firm) [2000] HCA M117/1998
28. McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (In liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Wayne Levick (2000) 171 ALR 335
29. Lynam v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] QDC 1855/2000
30. Bluehaven Transport Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] QSC 268
31. Halliday & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2000] FCA 950
32. Money Tree Management Services Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2000] SASC 286
34. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Davidson; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Faulkner [2000] QDC 1499/2000, 1787/2000
33. Dooney v Henry; Dooney v Chapman; Morgillo v Ross de Vere; Morgillo v Chapman; Gorshkov v Key; Gorshkov v Chapman; Dive v Chapman; Dive v Key; Gair v Chapman; Moeliker v Henry; Moeliker v Chapman (2000) 174 ALR 41
35. Buckingham Gate International Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited; MWW Baker Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Jasorc Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group; 300 Queen Street Plaza Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Klego Pty Ltd as trustee for The Lamont Family Trust v Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Klego Pty Ltd v Australia New Zealand Banking Group [2000] NSWSC 946
