Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) v Baxter - [1908] UKPCHCA 1

5 CLR 398

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

THE COMMISSIONERS OF TAXATION,

NEW SOUTH WALES BAXTER

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

INTERVENANT.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA WEBB FLINT

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

INTERVENANT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF Special leave to appeal from High Court-Reasons - for refusing-Question not again

raisable-Sum in dispute inconsiderable in amount.

Special leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court will not be November 28.

granted by the Privy Council where the question in controversy cannot be raised again, and where the sums actually in dispute or indirectly affected are inconsiderable in amount. January 14.

Petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgments of the High Court in Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation, New South Wales, 4 C.L.R., 1087, and Flint v. Webb, 4 C.L.R., 1178, dismissed.

Present.-Lord Loreburn L.C.; The Earl of Halsbury; Lord Maenaghten; Lord Robertson; Lord Atkinson; Lord Collins; and Sir Arthur Wilson.

5 CLR 399

PETITIONS for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decisions of the High Court: Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation, New South Wales 1 Flint v. Webb 2.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD LOREBURN L.C. Their Lordships intimated on 28th November last that they would state the reasons why they were unable to advise His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal.

The dispute between the parties was whether or not one of the Australian States could impose income tax upon a salary paid by the Commonwealth to its officers, or to a Member of the Common- wealth Parliament, resident in such State. There had been decisions of State Courts in the affirmative. The High Court of Australia overruled these decisions, and when the whole matter came before His Majesty in Council in the case of Webb V. Outtrim 3, this Board took the view that such taxation could be imposed, therein differing from the High Court.

Thereafter, in the present cases, the High Court entertained fresh appeals, and adhered to their former view.

The petitioners applied that special leave should be given to appeal to His Majesty in Council from that last determination of the High Court.

Before these petitions could be heard by their Lordships an Act of the Commonwealth was passed expressly authorizing States to impose taxation of the kind in question, SO that the controversy cannot be raised again.

The sums actually in dispute or indirectly affected are incon- siderable in amount.

In these circumstances it would not be in accordance with the practice of this Board to advise His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal.

There will be no order as to the costs of these petitions.

14 C.L.R., 1087. 24 C.L.R., 1179. 3

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 Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) v Baxter

Details

AGLC: Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) v Baxter [1908] UKPCHCA 1
Case: [1908] UKPCHCA 1
Decision Date: 14 January 1908

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Privy Council involved petitions for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decisions of the High Court in two cases: Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation, New South Wales and Flint v. Webb. The central legal issue was whether an Australian State could impose income tax on a salary paid by the Commonwealth to its officers or to a Member of the Commonwealth Parliament residing in that State. The High Court had previously ruled against the imposition of such taxes, but the Privy Council had disagreed in Webb v. Outtrim, allowing such taxation. The High Court, however, had reaffirmed its earlier stance in the present cases.

The Privy Council considered two primary factors in denying the petitions for special leave to appeal. Firstly, the controversy could not be raised again as the Commonwealth had enacted legislation expressly authorizing States to impose the disputed taxes, thereby resolving the matter. Secondly, the sums actually in dispute or indirectly affected were considered inconsiderable in amount, which aligned with the Board's practice of not granting special leave in such cases.

In light of these considerations, the Privy Council decided not to advise His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal. Consequently, there would be no order as to the costs of these petitions. This decision underscores the importance of both the potential for legislative resolution and the monetary significance of disputes in the context of appeals to the Privy Council from the High Court of Australia.

Orders