Roberts v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 238

Roberts v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 238

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable case that the 2008 assessments were either tentative/provisional or the result of conscious/reckless maladministration. The evidence did not show a serious dereliction of duty or recklessness by the respondent in making the assessments. Therefore, the protected status...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Reginald George Roberts; Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Income Tax Assessments, Maladministration, Judicial Review Under S 39 B Judiciary Act, Conscious Maladministration, Tentative or Provisional Assessment, Federal Court Procedure
Taxation Law Administrative Law Summary Judgment Income Tax Assessments Maladministration Judicial Review Under S 39 B Judiciary Act Conscious Maladministration Tentative or Provisional Assessment +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald George Roberts

Applicant

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had an arguable case of conscious maladministration or reckless maladministration regarding the 2008 tax assessments
  2. 2 Whether the 2008 assessments were tentative or provisional so as not to constitute valid assessments per the ITAA 1936
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory application for discovery should have been determined prior to summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable case that the 2008 assessments were either tentative/provisional or the result of conscious/reckless maladministration. The evidence did not show a serious dereliction of duty or recklessness by the respondent in making the assessments. Therefore, the protected status of the assessments under s 175 of the ITAA 1936 remained intact, and leave to appeal was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal from the order of the Court made on 29 October 2013 is refused.
  • The applicant pay to the respondent costs of the application.