IOOF Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 91

IOOF Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 91

IOOF Holdings Limited did not have an accrued substantive right under s 7(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to have its private ruling application determined in accordance with the law as it stood prior to amendment by the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No 2) Act 2012 (Cth), because any such accrued right was displaced by a clear contrary legislative intention as manifested in the comprehensive application provisions (items 50 and 51 of Sch 3) of the 2012 Act. The Tribunal could not apply the pre-amendment law in undertaking its review.

Parties
Appellant: IOOF Holdings Limited; First Respondent: Commissioner of Taxation; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Accrued Rights Under Repealed/amended Statutes, Retrospective Operation of Tax Legislation, Private Rulings Regime, Application of Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (cth), Tribunal Review and Powers Under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth)
Taxation Administrative Law Accrued Rights Under Repealed/amended Statutes Retrospective Operation of Tax Legislation Private Rulings Regime Application of Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (cth) Tribunal Review and Powers Under Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth)

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IOOF Holdings Limited

Appellant

Commissioner of Taxation

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had an accrued right under s 7(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to have its private ruling application determined in accordance with the law prior to amendment by the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No 2) Act 2012 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether any accrued right was displaced by a contrary intention shown in the 2012 Act
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal could apply the law as it stood prior to amendment using its power under s 43(6) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

IOOF Holdings Limited did not have an accrued substantive right under s 7(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) to have its private ruling application determined in accordance with the law as it stood prior to amendment by the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No 2) Act 2012 (Cth), because any such accrued right was displaced by a clear contrary legislative intention as manifested in the comprehensive application provisions (items 50 and 51 of Sch 3) of the 2012 Act. The Tribunal could not apply the pre-amendment law in undertaking its review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.