Tax & ATO News Australia

Freezing Orders and Disputed Debts: The Least of All Evils

Tax is a notoriously perplexing area of law.

However, few things are more perplexing than the inconsistent administration of the ATO’s disputed debt recovery policies.

Strictly speaking, the Commissioner is free to take whatever steps whenever he pleases, regardless of the existence of a dispute – in fact, sections 14ZZM and 14ZZR of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 are explicit that liability to pay assessed tax is not suspended because of pending reviews or appeals. This means, once assessments are issued, the Commissioner is entitled to do what is necessary to recover. This is what makes PS LA 2011/4 so important – taxpayers need certainty on what they can expect when an assessment is issued and have a genuine dispute, because the ATO does get it wrong, often with disastrous results.

The ATO’s practice statement PS LA 2011/4 attempts, with very limited success, to define and clarify the circumstances in which the ATO will seek to collect and recover disputed debts. Relevantly, paragraph 43 of PS LA 2011/4 provides the Commissioner of Taxation will agree to deferral of recovery action where the Commissioner considers that a genuine dispute exists in regard to the assessability of an amount, but it is unclear on what terms the Commissioner will agree to do so. The practice statement talks variously about 50/50 arrangements (payments of 50% of the underlying debt) and security, but does not make clear the circumstances in which these will be considered.

Regrettably, I have been involved in many cases where a taxpayer has a genuine dispute, and is later exonerated at the conclusion of legal proceedings, but the Commissioner nevertheless proceeds with one of the many debt recovery options available to him in the interim. These include, for example:

  • Bankruptcy. This ultimately achieves little in the way of recovering revenue, and can be fatal to a taxpayer’s legal challenge to the assessments the Commissioner relies upon to bankrupt the taxpayer, as the taxpayer’s rights to seek review typically vest with the trustee, or liquidator or administrator of a corporate taxpayer.
  • Garnishee notices. These are issued by the Commissioner to third party debtors of the taxpayer, which require the debtors to make payments directly to the Commissioner in lieu of the taxpayer to discharge the taxpayer’s debt. Notices can be issued to a myriad of third parties, including banks and companies. This can severely impact the taxpayer by diverting business profits, proceeds from the sale of real estate, and any number of other debts a taxpayer may rely on for their business and personal use.
  • Departure Prohibition Orders (or DPOs), which prohibit a tax debtor from leaving Australia, regardless of whether or not they intend to return, and can be issued where the Commissioner holds a belief on reasonable grounds that it is desirable to do so.

Of course, all are inevitably hotly contested by the taxpayers involved. This simply creates ancillary and costly legal proceedings that can cripple a taxpayer without contributing to the resolution of the underlying dispute. Wasting scarce resources on contested debt recovery proceedings is not in the interest of the Commonwealth or taxpayers.

If the ATO’s true concern is that the debt may not be recovered at all, and that objection proceedings are just delaying the inevitable, then surely the ATO must accept that something that preserves the status quo addresses all of their concerns. Freezing orders are a way of achieving this.

In my view, rather than bankruptcy, garnishee notices, DPOs, or other such irreversible actions, freezing orders are a far better way of addressing the ATO’s concerns that assets may be dissipated, while still allowing the taxpayer to prosecute their case. Instead of depleting the taxpayer’s assets and depriving them of their means to contest their tax liabilities, freezing orders simply preserve the status quo for a period defined by the court to mitigate the dissipation of assets pending a final determination and judgment. Such orders were employed in the recent case of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Greenfield Electrical Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 653, as well as a sequence of related proceedings in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chemical Trustee Limited (No 4) [2012] FCA 1064 and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad [2010] FCA 1014.

Ultimately though, within the current scheme of the tax law, we rely on the good graces of the Commissioner in such matters, and much of the way a matter progresses through review and court processes depends on the attitude of the Commissioner of the day.

My view is that PS LA 2011/4 would benefit enormously from a safe harbour approach, and in my respectful suggestion, the taxpayer should always be within that safe harbour wherever there was a genuine dispute. Such an approach would reflect the ATO’s reinvention, as perhaps would an overarching statement that the purpose of debt recovery is to collect the correct amount of revenue - and, more often than not, reasonable minds will differ as to what that correct amount is.

Written in collaboration with Nicholas Dodds.

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 08 June 16

Budget Announcements: Super contributions from a small business standpoint.

Super contributions from a small business standpoint.

Scott Morrison’s budget has been received with mixed reactions, but what effect does it have on small business and super?

The small business capital gains concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 can be a fruitful tool for those involved in small business that are looking to add a little spice to their super. Whilst these concessions can be a real boon when properly utilized, there is no comment so far on whether their effectiveness will be impeached by Morrison’s new, slightly stingier, super rules.

 A key aspect of the budget was the introduction of a lifetime non-concessional contributions cap of $500,000. The lifetime cap takes into account all non-concessional contributions made on or after 1 July 2007, and will commence at 7:30pm on 3 May 2016. The purpose of this cap, according to the ‘Tax and Super’ Budget overview is to:

“Limit the extent to which the superannuation system can be used for tax minimisation and estate planning. Less than 1% of superannuation fund members have made contributions above this cap since 2007.”

It is important to note that contributions made before commencement cannot result in an excess. However, excess contributions made after commencement will need to be removed or be subject to penalty tax. The cap will be indexed to average weekly ordinary time earnings and is estimated to have a gain to revenue or $550 million over the forward estimates period.

Other relevant Budgetary Measures:

  • From 1 July 2017 a $1.6 million superannuation transfer balance cap on the total amount of superannuation that an individual can transfer into retirement phase accounts will be introduced.
  • Will require those with combines incomes and superannuation contributions greater than $250,000 to pay 30% tax on their concessional contributions, up from 15%.
  • From 1 July 2017, the superannuation concessional contributions cap will be lowered to $25,000 per annum.
  • The government will also introduce catch-up concessional superannuation spending by allowing unused concessional caps to be carried forward on a rolling basis for up to 5 years for those account balances of $500,000 or less. This will allow those with lower contributions, interrupted work patterns or irregular paying capacity to make ‘catch-up’ payments to boost their superannuation savings.
  • From 2016-17, the unincorporated small business tax discount will be available to businesses with an annual turnover of less than $5 million, up from the current threshold of $2 million, and will be increased to 8%.


Do the new budgetary measures alter the effectiveness of div 152 and small business CGT concessions?

S 292.90 (1) ITAA 1997 states that your non-concessional contributions for a financial year are the sum of:

(a) each contribution under subsection (2)

Subsection (2): a contribution is covered under this subsection if:

(c) it is not any of the following:

(iii) a contribution covered under s 292-100 (certain CGT payments), to the extent that it does not exceed your CGT cap amount when it is made.

Therefore, if the small business CGT concessions are included in section 292.100, they are not covered as a non-concessional contribution, as per the rules of 292.90.

S 292.100 (1) states that a contribution is covered under this subsection if:

(b) the requirement under subsection (2) is met

Subsection (2)(a) the requirement of this subsection is met if the contribution is equal to all or part of the *capital proceeds from a * CGT event for which you can disregard and * capital gain under s152 (or would be able to do so, assuming that a capital gain arose from the event.)

As such it is clear that div 152 small business CGT concessions are not included in the definition of a non concessional contribution, and as such it seems unlikely that they will be included in the $500,000 cap.

There is nothing to suggest that the definition for non concessional contributions will be changed to include div 152 small business capital gain exceptions. We think that these SBC continue to present themselves as a valuable method for those hoping to continue to invest in their super.
 

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 18 May 16

External Scrutiny Into the ATO

The house of representatives committee on taxation is currently accepting submissions into the external scrutiny of the ATO. This is after recent comments from the Commissioner of Taxation, Chis Jordan that there is too much scrutiny of the ATO. 

Encouragingly, Liberal Senator, Bronwyn Bishop, has resisted this call, saying that given the ATO’s role is to collect money and this has the potential to effect peoples’ lives, parliamentary scrutiny should remain.

More critically, the power that the ATO has to collect money is virtually unlimited, as I have written about before. This power, coupled with a culture that oscillates between rabidly aggressive (at worst) to uncompromising (at best), means that there is always a real risk that an individual ATO officer will go too far and destroy someone’s life in the meantime. This has happened, and I have personally been involved in many such cases, including cases that are deserving of compensation, so badly has the ATO behaved.

The Inspector General of Taxation, Mr Ali Naroozi, does an excellent job of scrutinizing the ATO, with limited resources. Mr Naroozi is a sensible and appropriately skeptical watchdog and needs more scope to review what the ATO does, not less. It would be an absolute disaster if the parliament was convinced that the ATO should be unsupervised.

If parliament agreed with the Commissioner of Taxation in this regard, the result will only be worse for taxpayers, including in particular those many taxpayers who are ultimately showed to have done nothing wrong. There must be consequences if the Commissioner’s actions cause an individual who has not avoided tax at all to lose their business, their house or worse. This has happened, and must not happen again.
 

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 22 March 16

Taxpayers Still Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I have written previously on the highly-publicised culture change and reinvention of the ATO, and the steps being taken by Commissioner of Taxation Chris Jordan to modernise the ATO’s approach to review and dispute resolution. However, this has been against the backdrop of the immense debt collection and recovery powers wielded by ATO officers, documented abuses of these powers costing taxpayers their homes and businesses, and recommendations by the Inspector General of Taxation and parliamentary committees to rein in these powers and the potential for their misuse.

In March 2015, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue issued a report into tax disputes. After hearing stories from taxpayers and tax professionals who have witnessed ATO maladministration and its consequences firsthand, the Committee made a number of recommendations to curb the ATO’s powers.

The biggest and most significant recommendation of all is that the ATO should bear the legal burden of proving an allegation of fraud and evasion on the part of a taxpayer. Where the ATO makes a finding of fraud or evasion, it enables the ATO to go back indefinitely to raise assessments for years long past. This puts the taxpayer on the back foot from the outset by requiring them to disprove whatever nefarious scheme or mischief the ATO can concoct in its imagination, and forces the taxpayer to rely on aged records that may no longer exist in the task.

This is inconsistent with the operation of all other areas of our law, where the party making the allegation is required to prove that allegation – and you are innocent until proven guilty. But not in tax matters.

Surely then, even the ATO can agree that it is at least fair in some circumstances to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the all-knowing, all-seeing taxman, right?

Wrong. In December 2015, the government rejected the Committee’s recommendation out of hand, suggesting that:

“A shift in the burden of proof to the ATO after a certain period has elapsed would be counter-productive and encourage sham behavior by taxpayers associated with fraud and evasion.”

It also suggested that the fact that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court consider whether the ATO position on this question is sustainable on the evidence before them in litigation deals adequately with the existence of fraud or evasion.

This is not an explanation that justifies why taxpayers should be unfairly prejudiced. A sham is where someone does something that appears to be one thing, but is actually hiding something else.

The real sham happens when the ATO manufactures a finding of fraud or evasion, without proper evidence, to allow them to tax to someone they do not have the power to assess.

The only real risk is that faced by the ATO: that the ATO would have to do its job better and be accountable to the taxpayer for its actions and decisions, supporting them with proper reasons and proper evidence. Evidently, this is something the government and the ATO are not prepared to do in a meaningful way here.

It seems to me that until the ATO is willing to come to the table and acknowledge the evidence and advice about the misuse of its powers, all the talk of a reinvention and a new way of doing business is exactly that – just talk.
  

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 20 January 16

ATO Annual Report

On 1 December 2015, the ATO released its annual report for 2014-15. The report provides statistics, details and commentary on the ATO’s performance across a number of key areas. It also showcases the ATO’s reinvention and recent switch to a more commercial approach to interaction with taxpayers, with a view to achieving better and more sensible outcomes. At the outset of the report, Commissioner Chris Jordan summarises this new way of thinking in his personal review:


“With the intent of building community trust and confidence, we shifted the way we interact with clients and stakeholders to be more collaborative, more relationship-oriented, more outcome and future-focused.”


The report goes on to list significant achievements of the past year, including improvements to the ATO’s dispute resolution process with early engagement, use of independent facilitators, increased alternative dispute resolution, and new settlement guidelines. Continuing to improve results in prevention and early resolution of disputes is also listed as an ATO goal looking ahead. Indeed, this is reflected in a number of statistics made available in the report:

 

  • The ATO settled over 1,000 cases in the 2014-15 year, compared to around 390 the year before. 84% of these were settled prior to litigation, compared to 77% in the 2013-14 year.
  • Then, in litigious cases, the ATO also settled 80% of all court cases prior to any hearing.

 

This not only reflects the ATO’s new commercial approach to dispute resolution, but also a more measured approach to litigation, and the cases the ATO is prepared to contest. Critically, this saves time and money for all parties, where previously a dispute may have spiralled out of control until a Tribunal or Court decision.

We are involved in many negotiated disputes and applaud the ATO’s reinvention in this respect. However, while the ATO grapples with this transition, remnants of the old ATO mindset remain. This is particularly evident in the continuing aggressive and inappropriate use of wide debt recovery powers, and gung-ho auditors looking to make a good impression.

Ultimately, the 2014-15 annual report shows the ATO is taking steps in the right direction at the executive level, but on the front lines, there is still plenty of work to be done.

            

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 03 December 15

ATO Wiretaps

The Federal Government is seriously considering giving the ATO wiretap powers, or more accurately, powers to access metadata, including stored phone calls, emails and SMSs.

A Government committee has argued that these powers are necessary to protect against serious crime, such as tax fraud, and noted that “Al Capone was caught through the tax system.” I kid you not.

I will leave the critique of an argument that leads from the premise of Al Capone to the conclusion of ATO needing more power to the logicians. My primary concern is that it is absolutely crazy to give the ATO more power when the Inspector General of Taxation and other Federal Government committees have already concluded that the ATO is abusing its current powers.

I have described them as monkeys with machine guns. This will potentially give the monkeys a surface to air missile.

It may surprise people that the ATO does not currently have the power to intercept telecommunications. There is a very good reason for this – the ATO currently must pass on the role of criminal investigation and prosecution to the crime authorities, specifically the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. Those authorities of course have the power to investigate all Federal crimes (including tax fraud), and can access telecommunication to do so.

However, there is a critical oversight role in that any warrant must be approved by a Federal Court judge. While this is quite easy to do in practice, it forces the bodies involved to turn their attention to the existence and seriousness of potential crime.

It is well established that the ATO can use its own significant investigative powers for the purposes of auditing and amending assessments. These powers can be (and are) used without any suspicion of wrongdoing – simply as a fishing expedition. The logic is that this is acceptable as far as it goes, because the ATO is simply raising assessments (although I have huge problems with this power being abused as well).

What happens when the ATO’s wide reaching powers are merged with the kind of powers usually reserved for criminal investigation and then only with the oversight of the courts? The power will be enormous, and the potential for abuse of that power will be correspondingly frightening.

I am genuinely concerned about the impact of these proposed changes on the rights of small businesses and individuals. As always with such measures, it is not the criminals who will be affected – there are already significant powers that can be used appropriately to catch the crooks. The people who will be affected are the kind of people I act for: people who do nothing wrong and are targeted by the ATO because of a data matching computer’s algorithm which no-one truly understands.

This is scary stuff.


  

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 28 September 15

Culture Change & The Reinvention Of The ATO

Anyone who has received an email from the ATO recently will see that their new email sign offs proudly state “We’re Reinventing”. At least sometimes they do - I suspect some ATO officers remove this logo in some correspondence.

And therein lies the problem with cultural change in an organization as large and entrenched as the Australian Taxation Office. I think the Commissioner, Mr Chris Jordan, is brave and visionary in trying to reinvent the ATO into an organization that is more approachable and responsive to taxpayers. A significant number of ATO officers, particularly in the Review and Dispute Resolution (‘RDR’) section of the ATO are on board with this new approach.

I shared a panel with two Assistant Commissioners on Friday 28th August 2015 in Brisbane to discuss RDR’s approach to mediation and their own project, in-house facilitation.

In-house facilitation is a form of mediation run by ATO officers who truly do act independently. I think this is a brilliant innovation and at its best, works very well. I have been involved in several facilitations, all with great success.

I am greatly concerned, however, that the good intentions of the Commissioner and those in RDR and the goodwill being developed by this approach is being eroded by some people within the ATO who do not believe in it. One matter in particular suggests to me that some within the ATO are prepared to walk away from a concluded deal from a mediation.

Hopefully these issues can be resolved and I look forward to hearing from the RDR Assistant Commissioners as to how they hope to address this problem in the future.
  

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 17 September 15

The Simple Solution to Solve the Budget

I have had an epiphany.

I can solve the budget shortfall for the Federal Government by showing the Treasurer how to raise unlimited revenue. My plan is simple. The legislation is already in place and the Courts and the AAT have shown us that it is possible.

We are going to tax dead people.

I am not talking about an estate tax, or death duty. That would be politically unpopular.

No, what I am proposing is that the ATO issue default assessments under s167 of the ITAA 36 to every single person who has died in Australia since 1936. How can the Government do this, you wonder? That’s the beautiful part of my plan – all the ATO has to do is to make a determination under s170 that every deceased tax payer avoided tax due to fraud or evasion. Then the ATO can go as far back as it likes and raise new assessments.

The Courts have said time and again in cases like Rigoli and Futuris that the ATO does not even need to try very hard to come up with a figure. They just need to have a bit of an educated guess and then it’s up to the taxpayer to prove that this figure is wrong.

So each deceased taxpayer can get a tax assessment for, say, $10m. Section 177 means that’s proof they owe the tax. And the proof of tax evasion? Well, the ATO doesn’t need to prove that either. That’s up to the taxpayer too. If a figleaf of justification was required (and it’s not, according to the Courts) the ATO will say what it always does in such cases – any taxpayer who owed such a large amount of money must have known they had more tax to pay. Ergo they deliberately understated their taxable income, ergo tax evasion.

Cheating non-taxpaying bastards. We’d lock them up if they weren’t already dead. On the otherhand, fortunately for the Government, being dead makes it hard for the taxpayer to prove their case. If there is a material witness to a question of fact, Jones v Dunkel says you have to produce them to give that evidence or risk an adverse factual finding. And no-one is more material to a question of tax evasion by a taxpayer than the taxpayer him or herself.

The plan is foolproof. Naturally it’s extremely unlikely any money will be collected from estates that have already been distributed and finalised, but quite alot of people will probably cough up a couple of million each to save the cost and expense of having to fight a losing battle against the ATO, with their unlimited litigation budgets.

This was right in front of our eyes the whole time. The Courts and the AAT have already sanctioned it, as recently as last week. Check out this if you don’t believe me.

Well, that’s that problem solved. I’m off to the middle east next to solve that little pickle by introducing effective Workplace Health and Safety Laws.
  

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 09 July 15

The GST Issue With Uber

The ATO recently announced their view that popular ride-sharing facility Uber is a taxi service for GST purposes. For those who are unaware, Uber is a platform by which private individuals can register and make their own vehicles available to the public, drive passengers to their desired location for a commercial fare, all via a simple smartphone application. While it has enjoyed phenomenal success and is available in 200 cities across 55 countries, this GST ruling is only the latest development in a long list of regulatory hurdles faced by the company.

Typically, businesses with a GST turnover of less than $75,000 are not required to be registered for GST. However, the exception to this rule is found in s 144-5 of the GST Act, which states that if you provide “taxi services” as part of an enterprise, you are required to be registered for GST, regardless of turnover. The ATO identifies three key points underpinning this approach:

First, it avoids the confusion that would arise if some taxis had to charge GST, and some did not;
Second, to avoid the issue of a passenger using a taxi on a business trip, which is a creditable acquisition for GST purposes, and wanting to claim an input tax credit against the GST included in the fare, but potentially being prevented from doing so; and
Third, the state authorities regulating traditional taxi services adjusted all meters to reflect GST after 1 July 2000. If only some drivers were registered for GST but all drivers collected this higher rate, it would disadvantage drivers who had to be registered under the ordinary $75,000 threshold but provided the same service.
This extends to taxi drivers, chauffeur-driven limousines, hire cars, and, now, Uber drivers. This means charging GST, lodging Business Activity Statements, and claiming Input Tax Credits for transactions entered into while providing “taxi services”.

While the object of the section is arguably to promote uniformity in the industry, the decision that Uber is part of this industry suddenly presents a huge compliance burden that did not previously exist for the company and its drivers. The company has since argued it is being unfairly targeted, and to find out whether this is the case, it is necessary to have regard to what precisely it is that the ATO considers a ‘taxi service’.

Guidance can be drawn from ATO ID 2002/23, which notes the term ‘taxi’ is not defined in the GST Act, and so the term should take on its ordinary meaning. To this end, the ATO referred to the Macquarie Dictionary 1997 definition, being ‘a motor car for public hire, especially one fitted with a taximeter.’ Applying this definition to Uber’s method of operation, it is certainly possible to consider Uber cars as being for public hire, and thus taxis for the purposes of the GST Act, with all the responsibilities that entails. By registering and providing your availability, any member of the public looking for a lift can simply request one through the Uber app on their smartphone, and the driver will meet them for pickup and drop off – ironically not dissimilar to the apps now available to request conventional taxis here on the Gold Coast.

It seems that while Uber has tried to take a revolutionary approach to travel-for-hire by pioneering the ride-sharing industry, for GST purposes, it’s actually nothing new at all - at least in the view of the ATO. With Uber strongly foreshadowing a legal challenge in reply, it will be interesting to see whether the courts share the ATO’s view, or whether they limit the scope of the term ‘taxi’ to the traditional metered model, and the impact that such a decision will have on this section of the transportation industry. 

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 28 May 15

New Powers For ATO

I'm sure by now you have seen the recent press releases by the Tax Commissioner and the Assistant Treasurer announcing the Government's intention to provide the Commissioner with a statutory remedial power that will allow for resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in taxation and superannuation law. If not, here is the original media release by the office of the Assistant Treasurer;

The Government is committed to providing more certainty and better outcomes for taxpayers and reducing the regulatory burden on individuals, business and community organisations. The complexity of Australia’s tax law, combined with evolving business practices, has increasingly led to unintended outcomes. Even though the Commissioner of Taxation endeavours to interpret the law to give effect to its purpose or object, there are instances where this is not possible.

To address this, the Government will provide the Commissioner with a statutory remedial power to allow for a more timely resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in the taxation and superannuation law.This will allow the Commissioner to make a disallowable legislative instrument that will have the effect of modifying the operation of the taxation and superannuation law to ensure the law can be administered to achieve its purpose or object.

There are similar legislative instruments making powers in Commonwealth law currently granted to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and also the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The power will be appropriately limited in its application and will only apply to the extent that it has a beneficial outcome for taxpayers. It will only be available where the modification is not inconsistent with the purpose or object of the law and has no more than a negligible revenue impact. The Commissioner will consult publicly prior to any exercise of the power. This power provides a mechanism to deal with some aspects of complexity in the tax law, and provides more certainty and better outcomes for taxpayers. Josh Frydenberg, Assistant Treasurer.


My perspective on this announcement of new powers for the ATO, and the intention to correct any deficiencies in taxation and superannuation law, is that the law is complex, as we all know, and quite often unintended loopholes operate against taxpayers.

I have been involved in a number of cases, particularly involving superannuation, where it was clear that no mischief was done, but the tax law punished the taxpayer anyway. In most of those cases, the ATO has told me that they would love to help, but their hands are tied because the legislation won’t let them assist. In all cases we worked our way through it, but it was messy and took more time than it should have.

This new legislation will give the ATO power to correct those kind of unintended consequences where the legislation falls down. There are safeguards, thankfully, which require the ATO to only exercise its power to the benefit of taxpayers.

There will be legal purists who will quibble about providing the ATO with powers to make laws, even when those laws are beneficial to taxpayers, as arguable breaching the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and the legislative arms of government. Overall, however, I think this is a sensible approach and as long as it is closely watched, should only be beneficial to taxpayers. 

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 04 May 15

Share


Tax & ATO News Australia

Author: David Hughes

Last 12 months

Tags