Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Haritos & Anor

The Commissioner of Taxation sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the scope of section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), which provides for appeals to the Federal Court on questions of law. The Commissioner argued that the Full Court had departed from established authority by interpreting section 44 too broadly, thereby extending its reach beyond its intended language and purpose.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Full Court had correctly identified a question of law within the meaning of section 44, and whether the notice of appeal had sufficiently identified such a question to invoke the Federal Court's jurisdiction. A further issue was whether the Full Court had properly applied section 167 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) concerning the burden of proof on a taxpayer facing a default assessment, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in *Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Dalco*.

The Commissioner contended that the Full Court had erred by accepting a notice of appeal that did not precisely identify a question of law, and by allowing an appeal that effectively required the court to re-evaluate findings of fact rather than review for legal error. The Commissioner argued that section 44 requires a question of law that the Tribunal has decided, either explicitly or implicitly, and does not permit a general review of the Tribunal's decision to find error. The respondent, however, submitted that illogical fact-finding constitutes an error of law, which is appealable under section 44, and that the Full Court's decision was consistent with established authority.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal.