Dinning v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 785

Dinning v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 785

Section 218 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 permits the Commissioner to issue a notice attaching to money which may become due, including salary accruing in future, and to specify the amount as a percentage of payments, provided the amount is ascertainable. The evidence does not demonstrate that the Commissioner exercised the power improperly, but an arguable case remains as to whether all relevant circumstances were considered, so summary dismissal is not appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review / Interlocutory Decision (directions, Summary Dismissal, Representative Proceedings, Interlocutory Relief)
Outcome
Representative action refused; summary dismissal refused; interlocutory relief refused; directions made for continuation of proceedings.
Legal Topics
['section 218 Notices (garnishee)' 'judicial Review' 'representative Proceedings' 'income Tax' 'summary Dismissal' 'interlocutory Relief']

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

Application for Order of Review / Interlocutory Decision (directions, Summary Dismissal, Representative Proceedings, Interlocutory Relief)

  1. 1 ['Whether s 218 notice under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 can attach to future salary payments' 'Whether a s 218 notice may specify a percentage rather than a fixed amount' "Whether the Commissioner's exercise of power under s 218 was improper" 'Whether proceeding should proceed as representative action' 'Whether summary dismissal is warranted']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 218 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 permits the Commissioner to issue a notice attaching to money which may become due, including salary accruing in future, and to specify the amount as a percentage of payments, provided the amount is ascertainable. The evidence does not demonstrate that the Commissioner exercised the power improperly, but an arguable case remains as to whether all relevant circumstances were considered, so summary dismissal is not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Representative action refused; summary dismissal refused; interlocutory relief refused; directions made for continuation of proceedings.

Orders

  • ['By consent, leave granted to discontinue against Second Respondent, and application amended accordingly.' 'Added the following persons as applicants: Thomas Joseph Raniere, Peter Tanfani Cecil, Roger Lee Duncan, Ronnie Joe Coleman, Eric Lee Rooth, Daryl Marcellus Petersen, Maxwell Charles Knight.' 'Within 21 days...