Stocks & Holdings (Sales) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1969] HCA 35

Stocks & Holdings (Sales) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1969] HCA 35

The taxpayer did not discharge the onus of proving that the assessment was excessive. The evidence did not support an inference that the delegate failed to comply with s. 103A (5) or considered irrelevant matters, and the delegate's opinion was not shown to be unauthorized, irrational or capricious. Section 103A (5) did not require a request by the company and applied to a company in the taxpayer's position, so the assessment was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S. 187 (b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 1965 Cth / High Court Appeal Against Income Tax Assessment
Outcome
Assessment confirmed. Appeal dismissed. Costs of the appeal to be paid by the taxpayer.
Legal Topics
['income Tax Assessment' 'private Company and Public Company Classification' "commissioner's Opinion Under S. 103 a (5)" 'burden of Proving Assessment Excessive' 'statutory Construction']
['taxation Law' 'administrative Law'] ['income Tax Assessment' 'private Company and Public Company Classification' "commissioner's Opinion Under S. 103 a (5)" 'burden of Proving Assessment Excessive' 'statutory Construction']

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 Under S. 187 (b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 1965 Cth / High Court Appeal Against Income Tax Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the taxpayer proved that the assessment was excessive under s. 190 (b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act.' "Whether the Commissioner's delegate's opinion under s. 103A (5) was unauthorized, irrational or capricious having regard to pars. (a), (b), (c) and (d) of that subsection." 'Whether s. 103A (5) impliedly required a private company to request the Commissioner to treat it as a public company before the power could arise.' 'Whether s. 103A (5) could apply to a private company that was a subsidiary of a public company but not in accordance with s. 103A (4).']

Ratio Decidendi

The taxpayer did not discharge the onus of proving that the assessment was excessive. The evidence did not support an inference that the delegate failed to comply with s. 103A (5) or considered irrelevant matters, and the delegate's opinion was not shown to be unauthorized, irrational or capricious. Section 103A (5) did not require a request by the company and applied to a company in the taxpayer's position, so the assessment was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Assessment confirmed. Appeal dismissed. Costs of the appeal to be paid by the taxpayer.

Orders

  • ['Assessment confirmed.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'Order that the costs of the appeal be paid by the taxpayer.']