Piccolo v McVeigh [2002] FCA 323

Piccolo v McVeigh [2002] FCA 323

There was no proper basis on the findings made by the AAT for it to conclude that advances or distributions by PIC to the applicant's wife were made as a result of work or services by the applicant. Thus, such advances should not be treated as income of the applicant under s 139L(a)(vii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['income Contributions' 'discretionary Trusts' 'assessment of Income' 'work Done or Services Performed']

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 / Judgment

  1. 1 ["whether income distributed to a beneficiary of a bankrupt's family discretionary trust by the trustee is income received as a result of work done or services performed by a bankrupt under s 139L(a)(vii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no proper basis on the findings made by the AAT for it to conclude that advances or distributions by PIC to the applicant's wife were made as a result of work or services by the applicant. Thus, such advances should not be treated as income of the applicant under s 139L(a)(vii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal of the applicant be allowed.' 'Paragraph (1)(b) of the directions in para 3 of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 2 July 2001 be set aside.' 'The cross-appeal of the respondent be dismissed.' "The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the appeal and...