Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Cutts (No.4)

The case of *Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Cutts (No.4)* involved an application for review of a sequestration order issued by a Registrar. The applicant, Mr Cutts, sought to challenge the validity of the proceedings instituted by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proceedings had been validly instituted by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, and whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to be represented by counsel. Mr Cutts contended that the Deputy Commissioner should be required to prove that an act of bankruptcy had been committed within the six months preceding the presentation of the creditor's petition, and that the absence of a personally deposed affidavit from the Deputy Commissioner was fatal to the proceedings.

Judge Antoni Lucev determined that Mr Cutts had failed to provide evidence that the proceedings were not instituted by the Commissioner. The court applied section 15(2) of the *Tax Administration Act 1953* (Cth), which establishes that the appearance of counsel on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner is prima facie evidence of their authority to appear. The court found that the mere fact that an affidavit was not personally deposed by the Deputy Commissioner did not constitute evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, section 15 of the *Tax Administration Act 1953* (Cth) was held to validly permit the Deputy Commissioner to be represented by a legal practitioner, rather than requiring personal attendance.

Consequently, Mr Cutts' grounds of opposition, including the challenge to the authority of the Deputy Commissioner's representation, were dismissed.