Your shopping cart is empty

The Full Federal Court (Ryan, Heerey and Edmonds JJ) has held that 2 taxpayers were not entitled to request reasons pursuant to s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (‘the ADJR Act’) in respect of decisions made by the Commissioner, as part of his disallowance of objections filed by each taxpayer pursuant to s 14ZY of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, not to further or fully remit additional tax pursuant to s 227(3) of ITAA 1936.

The Full Court said that there can only be one objection by each of the taxpayers in respect of the assessment of primary tax and additional tax notified by the notice issued to each of them, with the result that there can only be one decision in respect of each objection. This decision was not one to which the ADJR Act applies because of subpara (ga) of Schedule 1 to the ADJR Act. The Court then said:

"...the Commissioner’s refusal to further or fully remit the additional tax is subsumed in the objection decision and, as a result, the objection decision is no less a decision under s 14ZY of the TAA disallowing an objection to an assessment of tax than it would be if the objection on which the decision is made had been grounded solely in matters going to primary tax."

The Commissioner's appeal against the decision of Conti J, who had ordered the Commissioner to provide a statement of reasons, was upheld: FCT v Queensland Trading & Holding Company Ltd [2006] FCAFC 112 (Full Federal Court; Ryan, Heerey and Edmonds JJ; 6 July 2006).

For a copy of the decision, go here

Media Release Search
Eg. TD 2005/D52 ALL words EXACT phrase WITHOUT words Date range
From To