COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE v DATAFLEX PTY LTD & ANOR
[2010] ACTSC 117 (24 September 2010)
APPEAL – appeal from ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal – taxation – question of law – payroll tax liability – penalty for non-compliance – reduction in penalty tax – voluntary disclosure – disclosure before investigation – meaning of ‘investigation’ in s 32 of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT) – more limited than dictionary meaning – enquiry letter not part of an investigation – appeal dismissed.
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), ss 79, 83, 86
Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT), ss 31, 32, 33, 37, 82
Payroll Tax Act 1987 (ACT)
Taxation Administration Act 1996 (SA), s 31
Scott v Cawsey (1907) 5 CLR 132, 154
McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith (1979) 144 CLR 633, 643-4
ON APPEAL FROM THE ACT CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
No. SCA 11 of 2010
Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 24 September 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 11 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE ACT CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE
Appellant
AND:DATAFLEX PTY LTD
First Respondent
AND:ACT CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Higgins CJ
Date: 24 September 2010
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
This is an appeal from a decision of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Senior Member Hatch). Mr Hatch, on 12 November 2009, set aside a decision of the appellant not to remit a penalty for non-payment of payroll tax by more than 20%. It was the contention of the respondent taxpayer that it was entitled to an 80% reduction in the statutory penalty for that default.
The appeal was removed to the Supreme Court by order of Appeals President Stefaniak on 8 February 2010 pursuant to s 83(1) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT). Under s 79 the appeal to the appeals Tribunal may be on a question of fact or law. There is, separately, a right of appeal to the Supreme Court under s 86, also on any question of fact or law.
This appeal is, essentially, on a question of law. It turns on the meaning to be assigned to the term “investigation” in s 32 of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT) (TA Act).
Factual Background
There was no factual issue joined between the appellant and respondent. The respondent became obliged, under the Payroll Tax Act 1987 (ACT) (PT Act) to register for payroll tax purposes on and from 1 July 2005. It failed to do so.
On 13 December 2007, as part of a general survey of unregistered employers in the ACT, the appellant sent a letter to the respondent with respect to potential payroll tax liability. That letter was in the following form:
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: ACT PAYROLL TAX
The ACT Revenue Office is currently conducting an investigation of all employers…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Act Revenue v Dataflex Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] ACTSC 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the broader context of the Act, noting that the term ‘investigation’ should be interpreted more narrowly than its dictionary definition, considering the statutory framework and legislative intent. The court held that an investigation under the Act involves a formal and more intensive examination of the taxpayer’s affairs, rather than preliminary correspondence such as an enquiry letter. Since Dataflex's disclosure was made before any formal investigation began, the court found that the penalty reduction provisions were not applicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original tribunal's decision.
The court’s reasoning was grounded in the statutory language and the legislative context, ensuring that the interpretation of ‘investigation’ aligned with the purposes of the Act. The court concluded that the tribunal correctly applied the law in this instance, and therefore, the penalty imposed on Dataflex was upheld. The final orders included dismissing the appeal and affirming the tribunal’s decision, leaving the penalty for non-compliance unchanged.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
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.