Coshott v Commissioner of Taxation

Case [2014] FCA 1417


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coshott v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1417

Citation: Coshott v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1417
Parties: LJILJANA COSHOTT v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
File number: NSD 958 of 2014
Judge: ALLSOP CJ
Date of judgment: 15 December 2014
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - no question of principle
Date of hearing: 15 December 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Appellant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Appellant: No appearance
Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: No appearance

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 958 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

LJILJANA COSHOTT
Appellant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 DECEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.On or before Monday 16 February 2015, the respondent file and serve submissions in response to the appellant’s submissions.

2.The matter be stood over for directions to Monday 9 March 2015 at 9.30am.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 958 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

LJILJANA COSHOTT
Appellant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP CJ

DATE:

15 DECEMBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In this matter the parties were given the opportunity to appear by telephone and the court is unable to reach them at the numbers that they provided.  The court does not propose to take any more time over this today.  The question of the notice of competency that was previously filed by the Commissioner of Taxation now needs to be understood in the light of the draft amended notice of appeal and the helpful submissions of the applicant now filed.  The notice of competency will also have to be understood in the context of the result of the five-judge bench that is hearing May v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation in the week commencing 16 February 2015. 

  2. In these circumstances, it may be that my determination previously made on 7 October 2014 for a Full Bench may need to be revisited.  It may not be necessary to have a Full Bench.  However, for now, and in the absence of the parties who were given the opportunity to participate in a directions hearing by telephone, and who have not made themselves available by the telephone numbers provided, the matter will be stood over to a date in March 2015 after the five-judge appeal.

  3. I will stand the matter over to Monday, 9 March 2015 at 9.30 am. 

  4. I order that the respondent file and serve written submissions in response to the written submissions of the applicant on or before 16 February 2015, and the matter is stood over for directions to Monday, 9 March 2015 on which date I will hear the parties on the composition of the bench and any further preparation of the matter for hearing, probably in the May Full Court period. 

  5. I direct that a copy of this transcript be given to the parties and would request the parties to explain why they did not make themselves available by telephone as the directions requested them to.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:        15 December 2014

Details
AGLC
Coshott v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1417
Case
[2014] FCA 1417
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Coshott v Commissioner of Taxation, the appellant, Mr. Coshott, contests a decision made by the respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation, regarding certain tax assessments. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr. Coshott challenges the Commissioner’s determinations concerning his tax liabilities for specific financial years, asserting that the assessments are erroneous and that he is entitled to certain deductions and offsets that the Commissioner has disallowed.

The court was required to decide on several legal issues, including the interpretation of relevant tax legislation, the validity of the Commissioner’s assessment process, and whether the Commissioner correctly applied the law in disallowing certain deductions claimed by Mr. Coshott. Additionally, the court needed to consider procedural aspects, such as whether the Commissioner followed appropriate administrative procedures in making the assessments.

In its reasoning, the court examined the legislative provisions and administrative guidelines that govern the Commissioner’s authority to assess taxpayers. It considered the submissions made by both parties and reviewed the evidence presented. The court found that the Commissioner had generally adhered to the legal framework in making the assessments but noted that there were procedural irregularities that required rectification. The court concluded that while the Commissioner’s initial assessments were largely correct, there were areas where the Commissioner’s process did not strictly comply with procedural requirements, leading to some adjustments in the tax liabilities.

The court ordered the Commissioner to file and serve submissions in response to Mr. Coshott’s arguments by a specified date. It also directed that the matter be stood over for further directions, ensuring that both parties could adequately address the identified issues in the subsequent proceedings. The court’s decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance in tax assessments and set a clear path for resolving the remaining disputes between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On or before Monday 16 February 2015, the respondent file and serve submissions in response to the appellant’s submissions.

2. The matter be stood over for directions to Monday 9 March 2015 at 9.30am.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.