Prebble v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 165

Prebble v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 165

The Court was not convinced that Harris v Commissioner of Taxation was plainly or clearly wrong. Applying Harris, s 82AAE did not allow Dr Prebble a deduction for a $300,000 contribution made to a non-complying superannuation fund for his own benefit merely because he was a director or employee of a company he controlled. The Commissioner's defensive appeal did not arise because Dr Prebble's appeal failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Taxation Appeal Concerning Deductibility of Superannuation Contributions to a Non Complying Superannuation Fund / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Both appeals were dismissed. In Q192 of 2002 the appellant was ordered to pay the Commissioner's costs. In Q190 of 2002 there was no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['deductibility of Superannuation Contributions Under S 82 AAE of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (cth)' 'non Complying Superannuation Funds' 'eligible Employee Definition' 'when a Full Court May Depart From an Earlier Full Court Decision' 'taxation of Superannuation Fund Contributions']
['taxation' 'superannuation' 'statutory Interpretation' 'precedent'] ['deductibility of Superannuation Contributions Under S 82 AAE of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (cth)' 'non Complying Superannuation Funds' 'eligible Employee Definition' 'when a Full Court May Depart From an Earlier Full Court Decision' 'taxation of Superannuation Fund Contributions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Taxation Appeal Concerning Deductibility of Superannuation Contributions to a Non Complying Superannuation Fund / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a taxpayer who controlled a company employing him could deduct under s 82AAE of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) a contribution made to a non-complying superannuation fund for his own benefit.' 'Whether Harris v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 50 ATR 410 was plainly or clearly wrong so that the Full Court should refuse to follow it.' "If the taxpayer's appeal succeeded, whether the trustee of the Prebble No 2 Superannuation Fund was liable to include the contribution in the fund's assessable income."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not convinced that Harris v Commissioner of Taxation was plainly or clearly wrong. Applying Harris, s 82AAE did not allow Dr Prebble a deduction for a $300,000 contribution made to a non-complying superannuation fund for his own benefit merely because he was a director or employee of a company he controlled. The Commissioner's defensive appeal did not arise because Dr Prebble's appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals were dismissed. In Q192 of 2002 the appellant was ordered to pay the Commissioner's costs. In Q190 of 2002 there was no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal (Q 192 of 2002) be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the Commissioner's costs of the appeal." 'The appeal (Q 190 of 2002) be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs of the appeal.']