Regina v. Bates, Philip [2007] NSWCCA 297

Regina v. Bates, Philip [2007] NSWCCA 297

The notice under s.162 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) required compliance by furnishing the return by the nominated date; a request for extension did not amount to compliance. The primary judge erred in holding otherwise. However, the acquittal should not be quashed in this case, principally due to double jeopardy considerations and outstanding factual matters that could arise on remittal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Case Stated / Appeal From District Court Stated Case Under S.5 B Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)
Outcome
Both questions in the stated case answered yes; no further order made; acquittal not quashed.
Legal Topics
['double Jeopardy' 'failure to Furnish Approved Form' 'requirement to Lodge Taxation Returns' 'absolute Liability Offences' 'case Stated Procedure']
['criminal Law' 'taxation Law'] ['double Jeopardy' 'failure to Furnish Approved Form' 'requirement to Lodge Taxation Returns' 'absolute Liability Offences' 'case Stated Procedure']

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

Criminal Appeal Case Stated / Appeal From District Court Stated Case Under S.5 B Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court erred in law in holding that a notice under s 162 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) could be complied with by either furnishing the return by the nominated date or seeking an extension of time' 'Whether, where an extension of time is requested and not responded to, it can be said that the taxpayer complied with the requirements of the notice under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s 8C(1)(a)' 'Whether the acquittal can and should be quashed under s.5B(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice under s.162 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) required compliance by furnishing the return by the nominated date; a request for extension did not amount to compliance. The primary judge erred in holding otherwise. However, the acquittal should not be quashed in this case, principally due to double jeopardy considerations and outstanding factual matters that could arise on remittal.

Court Disposition

Both questions in the stated case answered yes; no further order made; acquittal not quashed.

Orders

  • []