Armstrong v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2010] QCAT 486

CITATION:

Armstrong v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 486

PARTIES:	Mr Andrew Thomas Armstrong
v
Queensland Building Services Authority

APPLICATION NUMBER:

QR218-08

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2010

HEARD AT:

BRISBANE

DECISION OF:

James Allen - Member

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

BRISBANE

ORDERS MADE:

The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority dated 2 September 2008 to refuse to categorise the Applicant as a permitted individual is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS :

Permitted Individual Part 3A Sections 56AB – 56AH Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:	Mr Andrew Thomas Armstrong represented by Mr David Simpson of Watson & Quinn Lawyers
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Building Services Authority represented by Ms Shaheen Aszal, Respondent’s Legal Officer

REASONS FOR DECISION

History of the application

Mr Andrew Armstrong attended a seminar on the Gold Coast in May 1999. The seminar was held by the former Harts Accounting Group and the purpose of the seminar was to discuss the forthcoming goods and services tax and promoting a superannuation investment strategy. At the time of the seminar Mr Armstrong was the sole share holder and director of the company then known as Airwave Air Conditioning Pty Ltd, now known as Dual (Qld) Pty ltd (the Company). Mr Armstrong attended a further meeting in regard to the superannuation investment strategy with accountants employed by the Harts Accounting Group, Mr Ross McSwain and Mr Brian Bower. Mr Bower had been an accountant with the firm of Roberts & Morrow who practise in New South Wales. Roberts & Morrow were the accountants for the Company at that time. Mr Armstrong decided to proceed with the superannuation investment strategy and as a result entered into certain transactions which are described later in these reasons. Those transactions had the effect of creating deductions in the income tax returns for the Company in respect of the 1999 and 2000 income tax years. The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (FCT) subsequently disallowed the deductions which were claimed by the company in respect of the investment strategy and issued amended assessments for both the 1999 and 2000 income tax years. The company objected against the assessments and, following the disallowance of the objections by the FCT, the matter was then appealed by the Company to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senior Member J.W. Constance handed down his decision of 3 November 2006 affirming the decision of the FCT made on 10 March 2005, disallowing the objections of the taxpayer to the disallowance of deductions claimed for the year ended 30 June 1999 and the year ended 30 June 2000.

There was no appeal from the decision of Mr Constance and subsequently the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation petitioned for a liquidator to be appointed to the Company. Mr John William Cunningham was appointed liquidator to the Company on 8 May 2008. On 12 May 2008 the Queensland Building Services Authority became aware of the appointment of John Cunningham as liquidator to the Company and that Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Armstrong v Queensland Building Services Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QCAT 486
Decision Date: 4 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Armstrong v Queensland Building Services Authority, the Applicant sought a review of a decision made by the Respondent to refuse his application to be categorised as a permitted individual under Part 3A of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. The dispute was heard and determined in the Queensland Land Court. The Applicant contested the decision on the basis that he fulfilled the criteria for being categorised as a permitted individual, and thus, the decision should be quashed and set aside.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Applicant satisfied the requirements outlined in Sections 56AB to 56AH of the Act, which detail the criteria for categorisation as a permitted individual. The Court had to consider whether the Applicant met the standards of competence and reliability, and whether he had the necessary qualifications, experience, and professional indemnity insurance as required by law. The Court also needed to determine whether the decision-making process was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.

The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law. Ultimately, the Court found that the decision of the Respondent was lawful and correctly made. The Court concluded that the Applicant did not meet all the criteria for categorisation as a permitted individual, particularly in terms of the required professional indemnity insurance. The Court found that the decision-making process was thorough, and the Respondent had appropriately exercised its discretion in refusing the application.

The Court confirmed the decision of the Respondent, maintaining that the Applicant was not entitled to be categorised as a permitted individual. The Court dismissed the application in its entirety, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Queensland Building Services Authority dated 2 September 2008 to refuse to categorise the Applicant as a permitted individual is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.