White collar crime – Page 3 – ░░░ INSOLVENCY INTERFACE

UK directors disqualified for failing to maintain adequate accounting records

Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Law, Insolvency practices, Records Management, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Jan 102014

Encouraging news. According to an article published on insolvencynews.com on 9 January 2014, the United Kingdom insolvency authority has banned the directors of two unrelated companies from acting as company directors for failing to maintain adequate accounting records:

“The directors of two unrelated companies have been banned from acting as company directors for failing to maintain adequate accounting records.

The disqualifications, which followed investigations by The (UK) Insolvency Service, were handed to Bradley Carter of Dr Spafish Limited, and Alan Coffey of Datadesk Computer Services Limited.

Carter, whose company offered fish pedicures and also sold franchises, was banned for seven years. Spafish began trading in August 2010 and went into liquidation on 28 November 2011, owing £788,968 to creditors.

The investigation found that due to the lack of available accounting records, it was unable to determine the company’s turnover, who benefitted from cheques and cash worth £181,953 withdrawn from the company’s bank account, and what happened to £68,100 received as part payments for franchise.

Neither was it possible for the investigation to determine the full extent of losses incurred by customers or who these customers were.

Mark Bruce, a chief examiner at The Insolvency Service said: “Company directors must keep sufficient financial records that show and explain the company’s transactions.

“This director failed to do this and there remain a large number of unexplained transactions, representing significant amounts, over the company’s trading period.”

Coffery of Datadesk Computer Services, which operated as supplier of office and technology equipment, was also disqualified for seven years, at Airdrie Sheriff Court in Scotland.

The investigation found that the lack of proper accounting records meant it was not possible to verify if £312,266 paid out of the bank account was for the benefit of the company.

This included over £123,141 paid to a company which holds petroleum exploration and extraction rights in Sierra Leone, West Africa and £26,000 paid for the purchase of coffee and related products. In addition, there were unexplained cheque payments totalling £79,038.

The company entered liquidation on 3 February 2012.

Robert Clarke, head of insolvent investigations north, at The Insolvency Service, said: “The lack of records in this case made it impossible to determine whether there was other, more serious, misconduct at Datadesk and that is reflected in the lengthy period of disqualification.”

Targeting phoenix activity: union asks Senate for tougher laws and action

ASIC, Australian Senate 2013-14, Corporate Insolvency, Employee Entitlements, Official Inquiries, Phoenix company activity, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Oct 252013

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) has focused its recent submission to the inquiry by the Australian Senate into “The performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission” on the issue of phoenix company activity.

The AMWU claims that “ASIC’s failure to adequately hold directors to account has cost millions of dollars worth of unpaid entitlements for employees nationwide. The time is now for action to be taken, impunity to end, and for unscrupulous directors to be held accountable.”

The AMWU submission (21 October 2013) makes four recommendations, namely:

1) Increasing resources and funding to ASIC so that it can properly investigate corporate misbehaviour.

2) A comprehensive review and amendment of s 596AB of the Corporations Act to provide stronger safeguards for employee entitlements and allow for more successful actions by ASIC and liquidators.

3) Introducing a reverse onus procedure by which a director, where there has been an adverse liquidators’ report lodged against them, will be required to ensure that they have acted honestly and responsibly in relation to company affairs.

4) Increasing ASIC’s legislative powers to hold directors and officers personally responsible for unpaid employee entitlements, with a particular focus on phoenix activity.

In expanding on and explaining these recommendations the AMWU says:

1) “ASIC is under-resourced to handle the thousands of complaints submitted to it every year. Regardless of what legislative or regulatory reforms are undertaken, without additionally funding, ASIC will not be able to protect the interests of even the most vulnerable of parties, such as employees. There needs to be a commitment to replace impunity with accountability, and increased resources and funding to ASIC must be the driving force behind this.”

2) “The intention behind s 596AB was to “deter the misuse of company structures … to avoid the payment of amounts to employees that they are entitled to prove for on liquidation of their employer”. This intention has not materialised. Instead, the criticism that s 596AB will prove to be a “toothless tiger… so hard to prove that nobody will be effectively prosecuted” has been proven true. This recommendation would allow for ASIC to, more easily, bring proceedings against directors who have compromised employee entitlements through corporate restructures. This would have a threefold effect of protecting employee entitlements, holding dishonest directors to account, and deterring similar conduct.”

3) “This recommendation is modelled upon Irish legislation under the Companies Act 1990 (Ireland) s 149. In Ireland, where an adverse liquidators’ report has been lodged, directors must ensure that a large amount of equity capital is invested in the new company (at least £100 000 with a minimum of £20 000 paid up in cash) or are required to prove in court why they should not be required to do so. This reverse onus procedure would reduce the detection and compliance burden on ASIC.”

4) “The AMWU submits that continued review of the anti-phoenix activity measures implemented be undertaken, especially in light of the first anniversary of the enactment of the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth).”

In support of its submission the AMWU gives its summary of the following recent cases:

• Steel Tube Pipe Group
• Forgecast Australia Pty Ltd (AMWU v Beynon [2013] FCA 390)
• Carlton Sheet Metal Pty Ltd
• Huon Corporation
• Paragon Printing Ltd

The inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics began on 20 June 2013. Submissions were to close on 21 October 2013. The Committee is due to report by 31 March 2014.

What do ASIC’s Enforcement Outcomes reports mean?

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Statistics, Offences, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Jul 262013

An Enforcement Outcomes report has been issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for the six months from January to June 2013 (Report 360).

It is the fourth of its type since ASIC abandoned its Prosecution Reports. But unlike those reports – upon which I based my paper, “Convictions for summary insolvency offences committed by company directors” , a detailed comparison of prosecution outcomes over the years 2006 to 2010, including the sections of the Corporations Act under which enforcement action was taken and the fines imposed – the new Enforcement Outcomes reports provide far less information.

In the part of the latest Enforcement Outcomes report that mentions summary insolvency offences, the reader is simply told that:

“As part of our liquidator assistance program, 249 directors were successfully prosecuted for summary offences concerning a failure to assist an external administrator.” (paragraph 86)

Similar brief references are made in the three previous reports.

So what, if anything, do these limited figures say?

About all we can do is compare the latest figure with those from the previous 18 month period.

In the six months from July to December 2012 the comparative number of directors successfully prosecuted under the liquidator assistance program was 275. (Report 336, paragraph 91.)

Further comparisons with the two earlier Enforcement Outcomes reports might not be all that meaningful, because those reports give figures on summary “proceedings against” directors rather than the current classification of “successful prosecutions” against directors. That said, the reports for the six months to June 2012 and for the first six months (to December 2011), put the figures at 196 and 208 respectively (see Report 299, paragraph 48 and Report 281, paragraph 39 )

But according to ASIC, readers need to be cautious when making comparisons of such data. The Enforcement Outcomes report 360 states (at paragraph 18):

“Comparisons between individual enforcement reports have some limitations. This is because no two enforcement actions are the same. For example, there may be differences in the complexity or seriousness of the allegations. However, over a two-year period, it is possible to identify the types of conduct or sectors that are the focus of ASIC’s enforcement activity in the longer term.”

This statement – minus the final sentence – was also used in the Media Release that accompanied the report.

Value of a penalty unit increased for first time in 15 years

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Laws, Offences, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Dec 202012

If you believe that the notional monetary value of fines should keep pace with inflation, then you’ll be pleased by recent amendments to the Crimes Act 1914.

The amendments, which take effect from 28 December 2012, will see the monetary value of a penalty unit increased for the first time in 15 years.

Also, the amendments require that in future the value of a penalty unit must be reviewed every three years to ensure that it is “amended to accommodate changes in the Consumer Price Index”.

The monetary value of a penalty unit will increase from $110 to $170. This is the first increase since 1997. On my calculations the $60 increase is the equivalent of a 2.2% increase each year over the past 15 years.

The change affects the value of a penalty unit in most Commonwealth laws, including the Corporations Act 2001. and, therefore, the sections dealing with liquidations and other forms of external administration.

I have written previously about penalties imposed under sections 475 and 530A of the Corporations Act. A section 475 penalty may be imposed if a director fails to submit a Report as to Affairs to the liquidator. A section 530A penalty may be imposed if a director fails to deliver books and records or fails to assist the liquidator. The old and new maximum fines for these summary offences are shown in the chart below.

Offence	Maximum Penalty Units	Old Maximum Fine to 27/12/2012	New Maximum Fine from 28/12/2012
Section 475	25	$2,750	$4,250
Section 530A(6)	50	$5,500	$8,500

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the increased maximums will result in greater penalties being imposed by the Courts.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012 received royal assent on 28 November 2012. See HERE

Crimes Act 1914, subsection 4AA

Section 1311 of the Corporations Act 2001

Schedule 3 of the Corporations Act 2001

ASIC invites comment on use of its new power to wind up companies

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Employee Entitlements, GEERS, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Jul 182012

How should the public interest test be applied?

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released a consultation paper outlining how it intends to implement its new power to wind up companies.

Recent amendments to the Corporations Act have given ASIC the power to order the wind up a company in specific circumstances and appoint a liquidator. The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 amends the Corporations Act to add a new part to Chapter 5 – External Administrations. The new part (Part 5.4C) – which comprises new sections 489EA, 489EB and 489EC – gives ASIC the power to wind up companies in FOUR scenarios:

SCENARIO 1:

ASIC may order a winding up if:

(a)	the response to a return of particulars given to the company is at least 6 months late; and
(b)	the company has not lodged any other documents under this Act in the last 18 months; and
(c)	ASIC has reason to believe that the company is not carrying on business; and
(d)	ASIC has reason to believe that making the order is in the public interest.

SCENARIO 2:

ASIC may order a winding up if the company’s review fee in respect of a review date has not been paid in full at least 12 months after the due date for payment.

SCENARIO 3:

ASIC may order a winding up if

(a)	ASIC has reinstated the registration of the company under subsection 601AH(1) in the last 6 months; and
(b)	ASIC has reason to believe that making the order is in the public interest.

SCENARIO 4:

ASIC may order a winding up if

(a)	ASIC has reason to believe that the company is not carrying on business; and
(b)	at least 20 business days before making the order, ASIC gives to:
	(i)	the company; and
	(ii)	each director of the company;
	a notice:
	(iii)	stating ASIC’s intention to make the order; and
	(iv)	informing the company or the director, as the case may be, that the company or the director may, within 10 business days after the receipt of the notice, give ASIC a written objection to the making of the order; and
(c)	neither the company, nor any of its directors, has given ASIC such an objection within the time limit specified in the notice.

Comments on Consultation Paper 180 are due by Friday 10 August, 2012.

Click here to download Consultation Paper 180. (PDF format.)

The following is ASIC’s media release of 12 July 2012:

ASIC today released a consultation paper outlining how it intends to implement its new power to wind up abandoned companies under the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to facilitate greater access to the General Employee Entitlements Redundancy Scheme (GEERS).

Consultation Paper 180 ASIC’s power to wind up abandoned companies outlines how ASIC intends to exercise this new power, and how it will prioritise matters for winding up

‘When using this power, our first consideration will be if an order to wind up the company would facilitate employee access to GEERS’, Commissioner John Price said.

GEERS is a scheme funded by the Australian Government to assist employees of companies that have gone into liquidation and who are owed certain employee entitlements. However, companies are sometimes abandoned by their directors without being put into liquidation. This has previously resulted in employees of the company who are owed employee entitlements being unable to access GEERS.

Consistent with the new law, ASIC is proposing to apply a public interest test when deciding whether to wind up a company. This public interest test will consider factors like the cost of winding up, the amount of outstanding employee entitlements and how many employees are affected.

‘ASIC needs to consider the broader public interest when deciding which abandoned companies with outstanding employee entitlements will be wound up’, Mr Price said.

ASIC is proposing not to reinstate companies that have already been deregistered in order to wind them up later. Among other reasons, there are already court processes in place to facilitate the reinstatement of a company where that is needed.

ASIC intends to commence using this new power to wind up abandoned companies in the final quarter of 2012.

Comments on Consultation Paper 180 ASIC’s power to wind up abandoned companies are due by Friday 10 August, 2012.

Background

One of the measures of the Australian Government’s Protecting Workers’ Entitlements Package (announced July 2010) is to assist employees of abandoned companies to access the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme when they are owed certain employee entitlements.

When the employer is a corporation, it must be in liquidation before GEERS can assist an employee.

Amendments to the Corporations Act have given ASIC the power to wind up an abandoned company in specific circumstances.

ASIC may appoint a registered liquidator over a company when exercising its power to wind up an abandoned company.

Retired federal court judge claims white collar criminals are treated differently

Offences, Taxation Issues, White collar crime Comments Off

Jun 052012

Ray Finkelstein, QC, retired federal court judge, writing in the March 2012 edition of the Australian Tax Office publication “Targeting tax crime: A whole-of-government approach”, says:

“There is significant law breaking by persons from the middle classes. When these people commit crimes they are seen to be, and are, treated differently. This is especially true in the case of ‘white collar crime’ …. If the distinction between the two kinds of crimes is removed this would reduce the problems resulting from inconsistencies in sentencing”.

Mr Finkelstein’s article, titled “Crime and punishment: White collar crime vs true crime”, is reprinted below. In the article he takes issue with judges who have a rationale in sentencing white collar criminals that is different from that which they employ in sentencing ‘true’ criminals, and suggests that it may be necessary to relax some features of criminal law for the purposes of combating white collar crime.

The original article is available at http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/snc00313370.pdf

“Crime and punishment: White collar crime vs true crime”

by The Honourable Ray Finkelstein, QC:

“There is a longstanding myth, slowly being eroded, that criminal behaviour is largely committed by those in a lower socio economic class.

The studies I have seen that address this define ‘true crimes’ as those that (1) directly harm or violate the rights of others or (2) constitute inherently immoral activity. When it comes to the punishment of true crimes, a court considers a blend of just desserts, reformation and crime control: rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, incapacitation (prison) and restitution.

In the world in which we live it should be evident that it is wrong to assume that criminal behaviour is confined to lower socio economic class. There is significant law breaking by persons from the middle classes. When these people commit crimes they are seen to be, and are, treated differently. This is especially true in the case of ‘white collar crime’.

Here I refer to crimes committed by people of high social status in the course of their occupation. One thing that stands out about white collar crime is that it is not due to poverty and the like. Also the ‘cost’ of white collar crime is probably much higher than true crime. Compare a bank robber who steals $25,000 from a neighbourhood bank with the corporate manager who steals $2 billion from his company.

How do judges punish white collar crimes? As a general rule the judge’s rationale in sentencing is different from sentencing true criminals. General deterrence – that is deterring others in similar positions from engaging in like behaviour – is usually the sole guiding principle. Retribution seems to have little role to play. Most judges believe that the humiliation, loss of job and loss of status experienced by white collar criminals when they are apprehended, brought to trial and punished, is usually sufficient punishment.

There are, of course, some white collar crimes where an element of punishment cannot be avoided. This is usually confined to crimes that involve a breach of public trust, a serious effect on the market, or a very large fraud loss.

What is interesting is that even though deterrence is the primary goal – imprisonment, when available, is regarded as a last resort. Probably the reason is a belief that imprisonment has a far greater detrimental effect on a white collar criminal. In some cases the judge will take into account the accused’s ability to make restitution as a factor that eliminates the need for a prison sentence.

This approach to sentencing inevitably leads the public to the conclusion that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor. The problem that leads to this perception is what I see to be a tension between the aim of general deterrence (which usually requires a harsh penalty – often imprisonment if it is available) and the particular (personal) attributes of white collar criminals.

When resolving this conflict, judges tend to compromise – they impose weekend sentences, short sentences or suspended sentences. I do not agree with this approach. It is, I think, necessary for white collar crimes, especially those that involve violations of trust, market manipulation, share market manipulation, anti-trust violations and the like to be regarded in the same way as other fraudulent conduct such as false pretences, or obtaining money by deception. They should be regarded in the same way because they are of a similar character. That is to say, most (I do not say all) white collar crimes are not really different from true crimes.

If the distinction between the two kinds of crimes is removed this would reduce the problems resulting from inconsistencies in sentencing.

A more difficult issue is whether it is necessary to relax some features of criminal law for the purposes of combating white collar crime. The fight against white collar crime is an immense task and regulatory authorities have limited resources. Establishing a guilty mind at trial is always difficult and sometimes impossible. The courts’ narrow approach to construction of statutes often defeats parliament’s true intention. The difficulty of obtaining independent (for example, documentary) evidence is well known. All this inhibits the proper pursuit of white collar crime.

The courts do not possess power to overcome all these difficulties. Parliamentary intervention is necessary in some areas; but courts do have an essential role to play.

In the first place when acting as a court of construction the court could adopt a pragmatic approach to the definition of crimes. Second, as a court of construction the court could limit those crimes in which the prosecutor must establish a guilty mind. Finally, perhaps there may be some crimes where the courts can state that the standard of proof should be lower than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and suggest that parliament should bring about the necessary change.

The most likely contenders are those statutes which have introduced civil penalties for contraventions that are also criminal. Parliament has already decided that a lower standard of proof is in order for these offences, provided there is a lower penalty. In substance, all that is needed is for parliament to legislate for an appropriately higher penalty for those offences.”

http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/snc00313370.pdf

END

Second attempt at tax laws to impose director liability for employee superannuation entitlements

Corporate Insolvency, Employee Entitlements, Insolvency Laws, Offences, Tax debts, Tax liabilities, White collar crime Comments Off

Apr 202012

The Government is again proposing to extend the director penalty regime to cover employee superannuation entitlements.

The original Bill was introduced to Parliament on 13 October 2011. (I wrote about this in my blog post on 18/10/2011: see “Parliament sees new tax laws to protect superannuation and deter phoenix companies”.)

In its media release on 18 April 2012, the Government says it “held further consultation with industry after withdrawing an earlier version of the legislation in November. Following this consultation, the Government has made amendments to the draft Bill, including to ensure that new directors have time to familiarise themselves with corporate accounts before being held personally liable for corporate debts and requiring the ATO to serve director penalty notices on directors in all cases before commencing action.”

This is the full GOVERNMENT MEDIA RELEASE of 18 April 2012:

“Draft legislation released today will help to protect workers’ superannuation entitlements, said Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury.

Under the director penalty regime, which has been in operation since 1993, company directors are personally liable for amounts withheld by their company that have not been remitted to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 2) Bill 2012: Companies’ non-compliance with PAYG withholding and superannuation guarantee obligations will extend the regime to cover Superannuation Guarantee amounts.

As well as strengthening directors’ obligations to arrange for their companies to meet Pay As You Go (PAYG) withholding and superannuation obligations, the measure will also help counter phoenix behaviour.

“The Gillard Government is committed to protecting workers’ entitlements,” said Mr Bradbury.

“This legislation makes it clear that directors have an obligation to ensure that provision is made for the ongoing payment of workers’ superannuation.

“It also ensures that fraudulent directors who use phoenix companies to try and avoid their debts will be held personally liable for their PAYG withholding and superannuation obligations.”

The Government held further consultation with industry after withdrawing an earlier version of the legislation in November. Following this consultation, the Government has made amendments to the draft Bill, including to ensure that new directors have time to familiarise themselves with corporate accounts before being held personally liable for corporate debts and requiring the ATO to serve director penalty notices on directors in all cases before commencing action.

The draft legislation also includes a new defence for directors liable to penalties for superannuation debts where, broadly, they reasonably thought the worker was a contractor and not an employee,” he said.

“The measure strikes the appropriate balance between protecting workers’ entitlements while not discouraging people from becoming company directors.”

The Government looks forward to receiving submissions from the public about this important reform. Submissions close on 2 May 2012 to allow for the introduction and passage of the legislation in the Winter 2012 sittings of Parliament.

The draft legislation, explanatory memorandum, and a summary of the policy changes can be found on the Treasury website.

CANBERRA 18 April 2012″

Click on the following link to go to THE TREASURY WEBSITE LOCATION WHERE DETAILS WILL BE FOUND. The closing date for submissions regarding the proposed legislation is 2 May 2012.

End

Ariff case prompts calls for Royal Commission into white collar crime

ASIC, Australian Senate 2009-2010, Insolvency practices, Offences, Official Inquiries, Prosecution of Liquidators, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Sep 292011

The Senator who instigated the Senate Economics References committee inquiry into the role of administrators and liquidators has called for a Royal Commission into white collar crime.

Senator John Williams, the Nationals Senator for New South Wales, has congratulated the Armidale Dumaresq Council for supporting his call. Senator Williams said yesterday (28/9/2011) that Armidale Dumaresq Council has first-hand knowledge of the damage that can be done to community assets through unscrupulous practices of some in the insolvency industry. The YCW Leagues Club in Armidale was the victim of the administration of Newcastle liquidator Stuart Ariff who this week was found guilty on 19 criminal charges relating to a separate matter.

Senator Williams said the Council’s submission to the 2009 Senate inquiry was damning of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for a lack of action. Since then, Armidale Dumaresq Council Deputy Mayor Jim Maher has been keen to see reform in the insolvency industry, and successfully moved two motions.

On 21 September 2011 Senator Williams called for a Royal Commission into white collar crime in Australia, and handed a file of statutory declarations alleging wrongdoing to the Australian Federal Police and the NSW Fraud Squad.

“Unfortunately there is no confidence in the industry regulators like ASIC anymore. Mr. Ariff is a case in point. I hope the Federal government acts on white collar crime because it is destroying peoples’ lives. To do nothing would be a green light for the illegal activities to continue”, Senator Williams said.

SOURCE: MEDIA RELEASE BY SENATOR JOHN WILLIAMS, 28 September 2011. Click here for Senator William’s Website.

Jury finds liquidator guilty of white collar crimes

Industry People, Insolvency practices, Offences, Prosecution of Liquidators, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Sep 272011

On 26 September 2011 former liquidator Stuart Ariff was found guilty of various charges brought under the NSW Crimes Act and the Corporations Act. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has issued the following media release. (The photo of Mr Ariff is from The Australian.)

“Former liquidator Stuart Ariff was today found guilty by a jury in the New South Wales District Court on all 19 criminal charges brought by ASIC. The offences relate to Mr Ariff’s conduct while he was the liquidator of HR Cook Investments Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“HR Cook Investments”) during the period 9 June 2006 to 29 March 2009. Mr Ariff was found guilty on 13 charges under section 176A of the NSW Crimes Actconcerning the transfer of funds totalling $1.18 million with intent to defraud HR Cook Investments. Mr Ariff was also found guilty on six charges under section 1308(2) of the Corporations Act 2001of making false statements in documents lodged with ASIC recording receipts and payments relating to HR Cook Investments. The NSW Crimes Act charges each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The Corporations Act 2001 charges each carry a maximum fine of $22,000 or imprisonment for five years or both.

Mr Ariff’s conditional bail was revoked and he was remanded into custody. The matter will return to Parramatta District Court on 25 November 2011 for sentencing.

The matter was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Draft laws released on director liability for unpaid super

Employee Entitlements, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, Priority Debts, Taxation Issues, White collar crime Comments Off

Jul 142011

Draft Australian tax laws intended “to better protect workers’ entitlements to superannuation, strengthen director obligations and enhance deterrence of fraudulent phoenix activity” were released on 5 July 2011 for public consultation. Treasury states that:

” The main aspects of these amendments involve:

extending the director penalty regime beyond its current application to Pay As You Go (PAYG) withholding to make directors personally liable for their company’s unpaid superannuation guarantee amounts;
allowing the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) to immediately commence recovery of all director penalties when the company’s unpaid liability remains unpaid and unreported three months after the due day, regardless of the character of the company’s underlying liability; and
providing the Commissioner with the discretion to prevent directors and, in some instances their associates, from obtaining PAYG withholding credits where the company has failed to pay amounts withheld to the Commissioner.”

To see the Explanatory Memorandum and/or the Exposure Draft Legislation CLICK HERE.

Closing date for submissions: Monday, 1 August 2011

I intend to write more about this soon.

Older Entries Newer Entries