Dear Mr Andrews
I refer to your correspondence of 21 November 2019 sent to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department) (as set out below) – our reference FOI/2019/362.
I am writing to advise you of further information in relation to the processing of your request.
Section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) requires that a request for access meets certain requirements. These requirements are:
-              It must be in writing;
-              It must state it is a request for the purposes of the FOI Act;
-              It must provide such information as is reasonably necessary to enable the agency to identify the document/s.
This email is to advise that your request, in its current form, does not constitute a valid request under the FOI Act. This is because we are unable to identify the specific documents you are seeking based on the information you have provided.
If you would like assistance to make a valid FOI request, please feel free to contact the Department by return email at [email address].
The Department will take no further action in relation to this enquiry.
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. +61 2 6271 5849
e. [DPMC request email] |
PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
-----Original Message-----
From: John Andrews <foi+[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 21 November 2019 9:20 PM
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Does the law apply equally to all people including the ATO?
Dear Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
Attention Scott Morrison, In summary a tax return was returned to the tax office accompanied by an affidavit supporting a claim for the entire deduction the tax office had collected over the previous financial year and for this amount to be returned on the basis of the substantive points made in the accompanying affidavit. Initially, the tax office did not respond but when they did they weren't talking in terms of an affidavit, but a letter, which apparently was regarded as a complaint, because their reply came from the complaints department, whom we had never contacted. The response indicated that the claim would not be processed but no actual reason that addressed the subject matter was given, thus the affidavit was ignored, in fact they made a point of saying that they would not respond, and as a bonus conveyed a threat of legal action should we persist in seeking a reply. We responded by saying that either the department must either process the claim or give a good reason
  why the
  claim was rejected, to which there was no reply, until we made a complaint with the Ombudsmen's office. Lawful practice insists that an unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgement in law and so a commercial judgement in our favour occurred as a consequence of their refusal to respond to it. However neither the ATO nor the Ombudsman appear not to observe lawful process and we suddenly received notice that we were to be the subject of an audit, and were to be charged 50% of the tax we had claimed as a penalty.
We responded by informing the ATO that we would respond to their demands for receipts if they could provide proof of their claims of authority. We requested they provide proof that they were a bona fide authority who had the power to demand anything of us given the High Court case, Moeliker vs. Chapman seemed to indicate that the ATO was an illegitimate organisation. Furthermore we asked for proof that the paying of income tax is a compulsory requirement and then asked for proof that a valid contract existed between this foreign, privately owned corporation and ourselves. The main point made in the original affidavit and repeated at this juncture is that we asked for proof that any affairs involving the commercial, fictional entity identified as the uppercase JANE DOE who has never worked, drawn an income or has never driven a car could create any  liability for the private, sentient living breathing woman identified as Jane Doe.
It is up to the person making a claim for the payment of money or demand for performance to provide proof to back up their claim but the ATO has also ignored this requirement of the law to send their penalty paperwork to us in fragrant disregard of the law, so my question to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is do they, like the Ombudsman claim that no one is above the law, while permitting various government departments to actually ignore the rule of law and of due process, not to mention the actual maxims of law that have guided its application over hundreds of years?
Yours faithfully,
John Andrews
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
foi+[email address]
Is [DPMC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? If so, please contact us using this form:
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.