George v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1952] HCA 21

George v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1952] HCA 21

The taxpayer was not entitled to orders for particulars. The burden under s. 190(b) was on the taxpayer to prove the assessments excessive, and the Commissioner was not required to allege or prove a particular source of the additional assessed income. Reliance on s. 167 did not alter that conclusion because the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Assessment Appeals / Appeals From Interlocutory Orders Dismissing Applications for Particulars
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['income Tax Assessments' 'burden of Proof in Tax Appeals' 'particulars' 'section 167 Assessments' 'conclusive Evidence of Due Making of Assessment' 'delegation of Commissioner Powers']
['taxation Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['income Tax Assessments' 'burden of Proof in Tax Appeals' 'particulars' 'section 167 Assessments' 'conclusive Evidence of Due Making of Assessment' 'delegation of Commissioner Powers']

Source-derived case record

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

Income Tax Assessment Appeals / Appeals From Interlocutory Orders Dismissing Applications for Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner should be ordered to give particulars of the source from which the taxpayer allegedly derived additional taxable income assessed by reference to increases in assets.' 'Whether reliance on s. 167 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1947 required the Commissioner to provide particulars of the source of the assessed income.' 'Whether the taxpayer was entitled to particulars of the person or officer who formed or made the judgment under s. 167.' 'Whether a deputy commissioner or delegate could exercise functions involving opinion, belief, state of mind, discretion or judgment under s. 167.' 'Whether s. 177(1) made production of a notice of assessment conclusive evidence of procedural steps involved in the due making of the assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The taxpayer was not entitled to orders for particulars. The burden under s. 190(b) was on the taxpayer to prove the assessments excessive, and the Commissioner was not required to allege or prove a particular source of the additional assessed income. Reliance on s. 167 did not alter that conclusion because the Commissioner's judgment under s. 167 was part of the assessment process under ss. 166 and 167, not a separate condition precedent requiring proof of its grounds. The requested particulars about the officer who formed the s. 167 judgment were also unwarranted because delegated assessment functions could include the relevant judgment and, in any event, s. 177(1) made the notice of...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeals dismissed with costs.']