The case arose when the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessed a taxpayer, who had unexplained deposits in a bank account and could not explain how he had been able to buy property and cars.

The case arose when the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessed a taxpayer, who had unexplained deposits in a bank account and could not explain how he had been able to buy property and cars.

In the tribunal the evidence was inconsistent, vague and oral.

The tribunal confirmed that:-

• the taxpayer (not the Commissioner) had to prove the assessment was excessive,
• the Commissioner is not obliged to prove an assessment is correct, and
• the test for it to consider is, "what is the balance of probabilities" when there are opposite view about certain events.