A Sydney barrister has been found guilty of contempt after he spent months ignoring a court order to hand over tax records – before arguing he should escape punishment because he had not filed a return for almost a decade.
Philip Bates claimed his failure to lodge tax records since 2016 meant that the required documents did not exist for him to hand over – one of several excuses a NSW Supreme Court judge rejected as “dishonest”, “factually inaccurate”, “without merit” and “disingenuous”.
During this period, he never told the court he did not have tax records for most of the years specified in the order.
“Remarkably, what the barrister had not disclosed … was the fact that the last BAS and tax return lodged by the barrister had been in September 2016,” said Supreme Court judge David Hammerschlag, finding Bates guilty of contempt. “He knew that he was not going to comply with the orders because he could not do so. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his non-disclosure was deliberate and, indeed, dishonest.”
When charged with contempt in early September, Bates tried to explain himself. He argued his disobedience was “inadvertent” because “of circumstances beyond his own control” and blamed one of his four tax accountants for his “inability … to produce documents”.
The judge kiboshed this argument. “The true reason why his BAS and tax returns beyond 2016 were not in existence was … because of [Bates’] own default in complying with his statutory obligations to file them.”
Hammerschlag was also unimpressed with Bates’ failure to hand over what he did have – documents for 2014, 2015 and 2016, which the barrister produced only in September when facing a contempt trial.
Bates was an “experienced legal practitioner”, Hammerschlag said, and his “wilful” behaviour amounted to civil contempt, which is a crime.
Bates’ penalty, which could include a fine or even a jail term, will be determined at a later date. The underlying lawsuit is still on foot. Bates admitted he should pay about $56,000, but launched a cross-claim against Sir Anthony Mason Chambers, claiming he lent the floor money.
