Commissioner of Taxation v Industrial Equity Ltd [2000] FCA 420

Commissioner of Taxation v Industrial Equity Ltd [2000] FCA 420

The appeal was not stayed because a live controversy remained about costs and the merits could be determined shortly. On the substantive issue, the context of s 264(1)(b) did not support construing "or" as prohibiting a notice requiring attendance before both the Commissioner or delegate and authorised officers; there was no rational reason Parliament would allow attendance before multiple authorised officers but invalidate a notice because one nominated person was the Commissioner or delegate. The phrase "any or all" of the nominated persons did not make the Second Notice uncertain because the recipient could comply by attending at the stated time and place before one or more of them....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Notices Purportedly Given Under S 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (cth) / Motion to Strike Out or Permanently Stay the Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Motion dismissed; appeal allowed; costs orders made in favour of the appellants on the motion and appeal, with the appellants to pay the respondents' costs at first instance.
Legal Topics
['income Tax Notices' "commissioner's Information Gathering Powers" 'statutory Construction' 'uncertainty of Notices' 'stay of Appeal' 'costs']
['taxation' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['income Tax Notices' "commissioner's Information Gathering Powers" 'statutory Construction' 'uncertainty of Notices' 'stay of Appeal' 'costs']

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

Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Notices Purportedly Given Under S 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (cth) / Motion to Strike Out or Permanently Stay the Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be struck out or permanently stayed because a subsequent notice had been answered and only costs remained in controversy' 'Whether a notice under s 264(1)(b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) can require attendance before both the Commissioner or delegate and one or more authorised officers' 'Whether a notice requiring attendance before "any or all" of several named persons and the Commissioner or delegate is invalid for uncertainty' 'What costs orders should follow from the disposition of the motion and appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was not stayed because a live controversy remained about costs and the merits could be determined shortly. On the substantive issue, the context of s 264(1)(b) did not support construing "or" as prohibiting a notice requiring attendance before both the Commissioner or delegate and authorised officers; there was no rational reason Parliament would allow attendance before multiple authorised officers but invalidate a notice because one nominated person was the Commissioner or delegate. The phrase "any or all" of the nominated persons did not make the Second Notice uncertain because the recipient could comply by attending at the stated time and place before one or more of them....

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; appeal allowed; costs orders made in favour of the appellants on the motion and appeal, with the appellants to pay the respondents' costs at first instance.

Orders

  • ['The motion to strike out or permanently stay the appeal be dismissed.' 'The appeal be allowed.' "The first respondent pay the appellants' costs of the motion and appeal." "The appellants pay the respondents' costs at first instance."]