LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2015] FCA 52

LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2015] FCA 52

The ACC examination of the applicant was conducted in accordance with the valid purpose and authority of the special investigation, with the direction for ATO officers to attend properly given and their attendance appropriately authorised under the governing statute. The subsequent s 264 notice was lawfully issued notwithstanding the prior lodgment of an objection; s 264 powers are not displaced by s 14ZYA. The dissemination and derivative use of the ACC transcript by the ATO (within the limits set by the non-publication direction and the legislation) was lawful and did not occasion procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness. No error of law or unlawful conduct has been...

Parties
Applicant: LHRC; Applicant: LHRD; Applicant: LHRE; Applicant: LHRF; Applicant: LHRG; Applicant: LHRH; First Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Second Respondent: Australian Crime Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at Trial Level
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Coercive Powers, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Taxation Objections and Assessments, Disclosure and Use of Compulsorily Obtained Evidence, Multi Agency Crime Investigations, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Taxation Law Criminal Law Coercive Powers Judicial Review of Administrative Action Taxation Objections and Assessments Disclosure and Use of Compulsorily Obtained Evidence Multi Agency Crime Investigations +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 70 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LHRC

Applicant

LHRD

Applicant

LHRE

Applicant

LHRF

Applicant

LHRG

Applicant

LHRH

Applicant

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

First Respondent

Australian Crime Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at Trial Level

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ACC examination was held for an improper purpose and thus invalid
  2. 2 Whether s 264 notice could validly be issued after a taxation objection was lodged
  3. 3 Whether ACC evidence could be used by the ATO in s 264 proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The ACC examination of the applicant was conducted in accordance with the valid purpose and authority of the special investigation, with the direction for ATO officers to attend properly given and their attendance appropriately authorised under the governing statute. The subsequent s 264 notice was lawfully issued notwithstanding the prior lodgment of an objection; s 264 powers are not displaced by s 14ZYA. The dissemination and derivative use of the ACC transcript by the ATO (within the limits set by the non-publication direction and the legislation) was lawful and did not occasion procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness. No error of law or unlawful conduct has been...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is refused.
  • Costs are reserved pending further argument.