Case of Steven Andrew Soong for Newspaper Content - myassignmenthelp

Question: Write about theCase of Steven Andrew Soong for Newspaper Content. Answer: Introduction: The nature of the report is based on the newspaper content. The subject matter of this report is to analyse the performance of Steven Andrew Soong who has been reported to run certain ponzi schemes and involved in the phoenix activity. The news regarding Mr. Soong has been published in certain leading newspaper and the official journal of Australian Security and Investigation Commission has proved its truthfulness (Asic.gov.au, 2017). Discussion: Allegation: According to the report made by the liquidators and the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission, Mr. Soong has operated three companies and failed to pay tax properly. It has been alleged that the tax evaluation of the companies are also not satisfactorily. According to the statements that have been revealed by the ASIC mentioned that he has also failed to perform his duties properly and he had collected the debts and does not pay it back to the office of taxation (Lianlt;/agt; and Lian, 2017). Allegation made by the appointed liquidators by confirming that all the three companies of Mr. Soong are suffering from tax liabilities and all the tax returns are pending. John Price argued that Mr. Soong has enjoyed all the unfair advantages by indulging himself into the phoenix activities. Breached section: The performance of Mr. Soong has attracted certain provision regarding the Corporation Act 2001 and it has been observed that there are sufficient grounds that can held him liable for necessary grounds. Considering his breach regarding the tax liabilities, it can be observed that he has attracted the provision regarding section 269 of the Taxation Administration Act (Woellner et al. 2013). Regarding the allegation against the collection of money on the labour hire, it can be stated that the provision regarding section 180 of the Corporation Act 2001 has been maintained. He had failed to perform his duty in good faith and violating the provision of section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001. Penalties: The main motto of the Corporation Act is to maintain all the provisions serially to avoid any future contradiction. In the present case, it has been observed that certain provision have been violated and the provisions of other related laws are also violated. For the violation of the section of Corporation Act, it can be stated section 1317G has been maintained. The Corporation Act has empowered the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission to suspend any directors against whom violation of the provision has been alleged. They can enjoy this power by applying section 206F of the Corporation Act. The limit for such suspension is up to five years. There are certain criminal provisions mentioned in Section 184 of the Corporation Act that provides breach of duty by the directors. 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 directors duty has been noticed in ASIC v Cassimetis [2012]. Conclusion: This report can be concluded with the facts that the information submitted by the liquidators and the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission have clearly specified the allegations and it has been reported by the newspapers that Mr. Soong has been suspended from his post and he will be held liable if the grounds are proved (Ferguson, 2017). Reference: Asic.gov.au. (2017).17-309MR Former director disqualified from managing companies | ASIC - Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [online] Available at: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2017-releases/17-309mr-former-director-disqualified-from-managing-companies/ [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017]. 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]. 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.