shopping_cart

Your shopping cart is empty

The Legal Nature of a Conclusion; Finding of fact v's Decision of law: some comments on Mochkin

Published on 01 Apr 03 by "TAXATION IN AUSTRALIA" JOURNAL ARTICLE

Tax lawyers may be tantalized by unusual things. One of them may be the legal nature of the statutory conclusion of dominant purpose contemplated by s 177D as dealt with by the Full Federal Court in FCT v Mochkin [2002] FCAFC 15.

Author profile

Justice Gaetano Pagone
Tony has returned to practice as a barrister after retiring from the Federal Court of Australia where he had been the national co-ordinating judge of the Taxation National Practice Area. Before his appointment to the Federal Court he was a judge of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Victoria and had been the judge in charge of the Commercial Court of that Court. He graduated from Monash University in 1979 with a Bachelor of Laws and from Cambridge University with a Master of Laws in 1983. In 2014 he was awarded an LLD from the University of Melbourne for his research and published work on anti-tax avoidance provisions. He was admitted in Victoria as a legal practitioner in 1980, signed the roll of counsel in 1985, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel for Victoria in 1996. He practised widely in taxation law, commercial law, administrative law, constitution law, public and human rights law during his career at the Bar. He was also Special Counsel to the Australian Taxation Office between 2002 and 2004. He is a professorial fellow of the Melbourne Law School and lectures in several post-graduate courses at the Melbourne Law School and from time to time in the Law Faculty at Monash University. He is the President of the International Association of Judges and had been on the board of the International Association of Tax Judges. - Current at 31 October 2019
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Tony PAGONE QC.

 

Copyright Statement
click to expand/collapse