Recklessly Make Statement to Tax Officer – Good Behaviour Bond Without Conviction

The client was charged with:

  1. Making a false statement to a tax officer (Section 8K of the Taxation Administration Act 1953)
  2. Recklessly making false statement to a taxation officer

These offences carry substantial fines, plus the possibility of the Court imposing a separate penalty representing an administrative penalty.

Shaun Pascoe represented our client at the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court.

It was alleged the client had obtained funds for a spouse rebate he was not entitled to. The client held a senior professional position, had not previously offended, and wanted to avoid conviction.

The circumstances of the offending were highlighted before the Magistrate. In particular, that the client had enlisted a friend whom he believed was appropriately qualified to lodge the taxation documents on his behalf. Further, our client had already started to repay his tax liability, and had cooperated fully in the investigation.

The prosecution strongly argued for a conviction fine plus the imposition of an administrative penalty. It was successfully argued that the somewhat unusual circumstances of the case combined with our client’s personal circumstances (absence of prior offending, plus good work history) enabled the Magistrate to exercise his discretion and impose a good behaviour bond (a 19B bond under the Crimes Act (Cth) and a fine. This penalty was thus imposed without conviction.

 


Shaun PascoeShaun Pascoe

Shaun is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist and a partner of the firm. Shaun runs the Heidelberg branch of Doogue + George.

He is an experienced criminal law solicitor and works hard to achieve the best possible outcomes for his clients. Shaun handles indictable and summary criminal offences and is an expert at criminal defence for both contested and non-contested cases.

Visit Shaun's profile to read more about his background and experience.

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 25/02/2013