This matter considered the prohibition on the CSR/tax officers disclosing information obtained under, or in relation to, the administration or execution of a taxation law, and considered ss91-95 of the TAA.
On 2 February 2012 the Supreme Court made orders winding up the defendant Ballantyne Chambers Pty Ltd. The plaintiffs issued a subpoena to the CSR for the production of documents, asserting they were relevant to the question of costs.
The CSR applied to have the subpoena set aside, submitting that the secrecy provisions in Division 3 of Part IV of the TAA apply. In particular, that it was clear from the description of the documents sought that the CSR would have been required to produce “information obtained under or in relation to the administration of execution of a taxation law”. As neither of the exceptions in s95 applied, the CSR was not required to produce the documents.
By judgment delivered 13 June 2012 the court held in favour of the Commissioner, stating that the plain words of s95 of the TAA should be given effect and the subpoena should be set aside.
The court also held that it was not sufficient for information relating to a particular taxpayer to be redacted, to enable the CSR to disclose the information under s93 TAA as general information which would not identify a taxpayer, stating: “The use of redaction may not be appropriate to particular information in relation to a taxpayer because the plaintiffs might be in possession of other information, which may be `likely to identify a particular taxpayer’.”