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.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment