Commercial and Corporation Law Assignment: Soong's Tax Evasion Case

This case study analyzes the commercial and corporation law case of Steven Andrew Soong, focusing on allegations of tax evasion and breaches of director's duties. The investigation, led by liquidators and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), revealed that Soong was involved in activities that contravened the Corporation Act 2001 and the Taxation Administration Act. The case examines the consequences of these actions, including potential penalties under the Corporation Act and relevant legal precedents. The study highlights the importance of adhering to director's duties, particularly in relation to tax liabilities and financial conduct, and discusses the implications of Soong's alleged involvement in phoenix activities. The conclusion emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of the allegations and the reports provided by ASIC and liquidators, reflecting on the potential legal and professional repercussions of the case.

Running head: COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Case of Steven Andrew Soong
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Discussion:.................................................................................................................................2
Accusation:.............................................................................................................................2
Infringed section:....................................................................................................................2
Consequence...........................................................................................................................3
Relevant cases........................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................4
Reference:..................................................................................................................................5

2COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
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.
Discussion:
Accusation:
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 (Lian</a> 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 himself into the phoenix activities.

3COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Infringed section:
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.
Consequence:
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.
Relevant cases:
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 director’s duty has been noticed in ASIC v Cassimetis [2012].

4COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
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).

5COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Reference:
Ferguson, A. (2017). The phoenix dilemma: how to stop rort artists from rising from the
ashes. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at:
http://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.
Lian</a>, &. 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.