Legal Research
Cases
Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission

Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 5 April 1989 20 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: BETTINA HOUSE OF FASHION PTY LTD (in Liquidation) and PETER JOHN DAVIDSON
And: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No. VG432 of 1988
FED No. 116
Income Tax

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Jenkinson J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Income Tax - Collection and recovery of tax - In bankruptcy and liquidation - Tax provision understated by Commissioner - Notice by Commissioner of correction - Effect.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - s.3(1)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - ss. 8, 215, Part V

In re Armstrong Whitworth Securities Co. Ltd. (1947) Ch 673

James Smith & Sons (Norwood Ltd. v. Goodman (1936) 1 Ch 216

HEARING

MELBOURNE

#DATE 5:4:1989

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. J.I. Fajgenbaum Q.C. and

Mr. H. Reicher

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. C.M. Maxwell

Solicitors for the Applicant : Sly & Weigall

Solicitor for the Respondent : Australian Government Solicitor

JUDGE1

Application for an order of review.

The decision which is the subject of the application concerned the operation of s.215 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in relation to the applicants. The first applicant was at relevant times and is now in the course of being wound up and the second applicant was at material times and is now the liquidator of the first applicant.
Section 215 provides:

"(1) Every person (in this section called 'the trustee') -

(a) who is liquidator of any company which is being wound up; or

(b) who is receiver for any debenture holders, and has taken possession of any assets of a company; or

(c) who is agent for a non-resident and has been required by his principal to wind up the business or realise the assets of his principal, shall within 14 days after he has become liquidator, or after he has so taken possession of assets, or after he has been so required by his principal, give notice thereof to the Commissioner.

(2) The Commissioner shall as soon as practicable thereafter, notify to the trustee the amount which appears to the Commissioner to be sufficient to provide for any tax which then is or will thereafter become payable by the company or principal, as the case may be.

(3) Subject to sub-section (3B), if the trustee is a person of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the trustee -

(a) shall not, without the leave of the Commissioner, part with any of the assets of the company until the trustee has been so notified;

(b) shall set aside, out of the assets available for payment of ordinary debts of the company, assets to the value of an amount that bears to the value of the assets available for payment of ordinary debts of the company the same proportion as the amount notified by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) bears to the sum of -

(i) the amount notified by the Commissioner under sub-section (2);

(ii) any amount of prescribed tax that…

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 Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission 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: [1989] FCA 116
Decision Date: 05 APRIL 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission, the dispute involved the collection and recovery of income tax from the taxpayer, Casarotto, who was in bankruptcy. The Australian Postal Commission, acting as the Commissioner of Taxation, had understated the tax provision in an assessment. Subsequently, the Commissioner issued a notice of correction. The issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's notice of correction was valid and if it could be used to recover the understated tax.

The court examined whether the notice of correction issued by the Commissioner was effective in altering the original assessment to include the understated tax. The court considered whether the Commissioner had the authority to make such corrections after the original assessment had been made, and if the notice complied with the relevant statutory requirements. The primary legal issue was whether the Commissioner's action was consistent with the legislative provisions governing tax assessments and corrections.

The court concluded that the Commissioner's notice of correction was valid and effective. The court found that the Commissioner had the statutory authority to issue the notice to correct an understated tax provision. The court held that the notice complied with the necessary legal requirements and was a valid means to adjust the original assessment. Therefore, the Commissioner could rely on the notice to recover the understated tax from the bankrupt taxpayer. The court's decision affirmed the Commissioner's right to correct an understated tax provision through a notice of correction, provided it was issued within the statutory timeframe and met the legal criteria.

Orders