Commissioner of Taxation v Beddoe, Keith - [1996] FCA 788

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - appeals to Federal Court of Australia - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("the Act") s 3 - order of review - - whether direction given pursuant to Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 33 a "decision" under the Act.

Administrative Appeals (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ss 3, 16
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 44(1), 33

The Director-General of Social Services v Chaney (1980) 31 ALR   571
Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24   ALR 577
Riordan v Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory   (1981) 34 ALR 322
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION V KEITH BEDDOE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS
No. QG 104/95

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
31 JULY 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. QG 104/95
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Applicant

AND: KEITH BEDDOE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

AND: COLIN WALTER CAREY and BARRY THOMAS GEORGE PURNELL and GEOFFREY JAMES FERGUSON and ROBERT THOMAS PREECE and JEFFREY ROBERT PREECE
Second Respondents

CORAM:    Spender J
PLACE:    Brisbane
DATE:     31 July 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The objection to competency be allowed.

The applicant pay to the second respondents their costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY No. QG 104/95
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Applicant

AND: KEITH BEDDOE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

AND: COLIN WALTER CAREY and BARRY THOMAS GEORGE PURNELL and GEOFFREY JAMES FERGUSON and ROBERT THOMAS PREECE and JEFFREY ROBERT PREECE
Second Respondents

CORAM:    SPENDER J
PLACE:    BRISBANE
DATE:     31 July 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for an order to review which seeks a review of what is said to be the decision of the first respondent as a Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the AAT'), given on 4 May 1995, whereby he directed that the applicant file and exchange answers to a number of questions concerning the investigation, prosecution and conviction during the previous fifteen years of Mr Daniel Devine ('Devine') with respect to tax offences or other fraud offences, and the time at which the applicant was in possession of such knowledge.

This application is brought pursuant to the Administrative Appeals (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ('the ADJR Act'), which provides a mechanism for judicial review by the Federal Court of Australia of decisions which are subject to review under that Act. Section 3 of that Act relevantly defines "a decision to which this Act applies" as "...a decision of an administrative character made...under an enactment...". This application therefore is different from proceedings in this court pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ('the…

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.

Continue reading Commissioner of Taxation v Beddoe, Keith

Details

AGLC: Commissioner of Taxation v Beddoe, Keith [1996] FCA 788
Case: [1996] FCA 788
Decision Date: 31 JULY 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court of Australia involves an application for a judicial review by the Commissioner of Taxation against a decision made by Keith Beddoe, a Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The application seeks to challenge the direction given by Beddoe, requiring the Commissioner to provide answers to questions about the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of a person named Daniel Devine. The second respondents, who are taxpayers, claim that Devine misled them into investing in fraudulent film projects. The Commissioner contends that the direction is irrelevant, overly broad, and infringes on the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

The central legal issue before the Court is whether the direction given by Beddoe constitutes a "decision" under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, which would allow for judicial review. The Court must determine if the direction is a final or substantive determination, or if it is an intermediate procedural matter that does not warrant judicial review.

The Court found that the direction given by Beddoe is not a "decision" under the ADJR Act. The Court held that a reviewable decision is generally a final or operative determination, whereas the direction in question is an intermediate procedural matter. The Court also considered that allowing judicial review of such intermediate directions could lead to unnecessary fragmentation of the administrative process. The Court concluded that the objection to competency should be upheld, and the application for judicial review should be dismissed with costs.

Orders