Phoenix Dilemma Legislation and Commentary †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Phoenix Dilemma Legislation and Commentary. Answer: Introduction: In recent times, various companies are being held liable for committing certain unethical duties and involved in certain malicious activities. Various newspapers are highlighting the news and the breach of duties by the directors has become a burning topic in Australia. In recent times, there is an increment of Ponzi schemes notified in Australia. The name of Steven Andrew Soong is adding more importance to this scheme and the same has been published in Weekly Times. An investigation has been done and inquiry has been made in the office and residence of Mr. Soong regarding an allegation of tax evasion. As per the report submitted by liquidators and the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission, it has revealed that Mr. Soong has engaged three companies and botched to disburse tax correctly. Allegation has made that the tax assessment of the corporations or companies are also not satisfactory. As per the report that have been submitted by the ASIC, he has also futile to carry out his duties appropriately and he had unruffled the amount overdue and does not reimburse it back to the office of taxation (Lianlt;/agt; and Lian, 2017). Accusation made by the chosen liquidators by ascertaining that all the alleged companies belonging to Mr. Soong has been suffering from tax burdens and all the tax profits have been pending before the proper office. John Price squabbled that Mr. Soong has enjoyed all the inequitable compensation by coddling himse lf into the phoenix activities. It has been observed that the conducts of Mr. Soong attracts the provisions of the Corporation Act 2001. There are sufficient grounds that could held him responsible for essential grounds. In view of his breach concerning the tax liabilities, it can mention that he has engrossed the provision regarding section 269 of the Taxation Administration Act (Woellner et al. 2013). Regarding the accusation against the gathering of money on the effort hire, it can mention that the condition regarding section 180 of the Corporation Act 2001 would be maintained. He had botched to carry out his obligation in good faith and infringing section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001. The main axiom of the Corporation Act is to continue all the provisions consecutively to shun any potential opposition. In this matter, it can be notified that certain provisions have been infringed and the provisions of other connected laws are also dishonoured. For the violation of the section 180 of Corporation Act, it can be stated section 1317G should have to be maintained. The Corporation Act has authorized the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission or ASIC to push back any directors against who breach of the aforesaid provision has been alleged. They can benefit from this authority by applying section 206F of the Corporation Act 2001. The edge for such deferment is up to five years. There are certain criminal provisions too that mentioned in Section 184 of the Corporation Act. Mr. Soong was liable for conjoined himself to Phoenix activities and the case regarding the same was observed in Giudice v Bolwell [2012] VSC 280. The provision regarding breach of directors duty has been noticed in ASIC v Cassimetis [2012]. Conclusion: At last, it can be noted that the newspaper had specifically stated about the facts of the allegations and it can therefore, be stated that the report given by ASIC and the respective liquidators are needed to be examined properly. However, it has also been mentioned in the newspaper that Mr. Soong is going to retire from his post this year (Ferguson, 2017). Reference: Ferguson, A. (2017).The phoenix dilemma: how to stop rort artists from rising from the ashes. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-phoenix-dilemma-how-to-stop-rort-artists-from-rising-from-the-ashes-20101210-18svy.html [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017]. Keay, A.R., 2014. Directors' Duties. Jordans. Lianlt;/agt;, . and Lian, J. (2017).Director banned following $1.2m tax liability. [online] Accountantsdaily.com.au. Available at: https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/news/10786-director-banned-following-1-2m-tax-liability [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017]. Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2013.Australian Taxation Law Select: legislation and commentary. CCH Australia.