Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ball Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ball [2003] FCA 1481
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL)
N 7299 of 2002
HELY J
1 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7299 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
APPLICANT

AND:

PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The motion is dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7299 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
APPLICANT

AND:

PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE:

1 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In matter no N 7299 of 2002 a notice of motion has been filed apparently by both Mr and Mrs Ball, the intended effect of which appears to be to seek an extension of time within which Mrs Ball might appeal from the sequestration order made by a Registrar of this Court on 20 December 2002. The notice of motion does not specify a hearing date, but bears the notation, date and time to be advised by the registry. The form of notice of motion appears to indicate that it was filed by Maxwell Thomas Ball, Mrs Ball’s husband, although as I have said, it appears to bear the signature of both. It includes a notation that the fax number of the person filing the motion is 676 15124.
On 27 November 2003 a letter was sent by the Court to Mrs Ball at 48 Evans Street, Westdale, (that being the address given in the application) notifying her that the notice of motion has been listed for hearing at 2.15 pm on Monday 1 December 2003 before me. The letter or the copy of the letter included in the Court file bears a notation that it was faxed on 27 November 2003. There is no appearance by Mrs Ball nor by any person on her behalf.
There is nothing in the papers filed which indicates any explanation for the delay in seeking to appeal from the sequestration order made on 20 December 2002, nor is there anything in the papers which indicates any viable ground of appeal from that order. Given the non-appearance of Mrs Ball the appropriate order is to dismiss the motion with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.
Associate:
Dated: 11 December 2003

The respondent did not appear

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Quinn

Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Taxation Office Legal Practice

Date of Hearing: 1 December 2003

Date of Judgment: 1 December 2003

The taxpayer, Mr Ball, brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file his objection to an assessment of income tax issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Ball argued that he should be granted an extension due to the complexity of his tax affairs and the need for professional advice, which he had not yet been able to obtain. The Deputy Commissioner opposed the application, asserting that the extension was not warranted and that Mr Ball had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The central issue before the court was whether Mr Ball had provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the case law concerning the exercise of discretion in such matters. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Mr Ball's situation met the criteria for an exceptional circumstance that would justify the grant of an extension.

The court found that Mr Ball had not provided a compelling reason for the extension. It was noted that the complexity of one's tax affairs is not, in itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting an extension of time. The court held that Mr Ball's circumstances did not meet the high threshold required for an exceptional circumstance. Consequently, the motion was dismissed with costs awarded against Mr Ball.

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ball

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7299 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION APPLICANT
AND:	PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	1 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Quinn
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Taxation Office Legal Practice
Date of Hearing:	1 December 2003
Date of Judgment:	1 December 2003