Dibb and Commissioner of Taxation

[2005] AATA 475

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 475

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  QT2004/205

TAXATION APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		RAYMOND DIBB

Applicant

And  COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal  Senior Member B J McCabe

Date 26 May 2005

Place Brisbane

Decision  The applicant’s request for the suppression of names in Raymond Dibb and Commissioner of Taxation [2005] AATA 378 is denied.

....................[Sgd]......................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Publication of names – hearings in private - confidentiality orders – names not suppressed due to them being publicly available in other published decisions.

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s14ZZE

Raymond Dibb and Commissioner of Taxation [2005] AATA 378

VAI v Forgie (2003) 72 ALD 800

Dibb and Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126

REASONS FOR DECISION

26 May 2005 Senior  Member  B J McCabe

1.      On 29 April 2005 I handed down a decision in this matter. It dealt with the substantive issues of the applicant’s appeal before the Tribunal: see Raymond Dibb and Commissioner of Taxation [2005] AATA 378. Since handing down the decision a further question has arisen about its publication.

2. On 3 May 2005 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting that his name and the name of his former employer be suppressed in the publication of this decision. There was some confusion over whether the applicant elected to have the hearing held in private in accordance with s 14ZZE of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth). He did not make a request to that effect during the course of the hearing. I am prepared to accept that a request for a private hearing was validly made.

3. Section 14ZZE states:

Despite section 35 of the AAT Act, the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal, other than the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal, for:

(a) a review of a reviewable objection decision; or

(b) a review of an extension of time refusal decision; or

(c) an AAT extension application;

is to be in private if the party who made the application requests that it be in private.

4. Section 14ZZE does not expressly provide for the suppression of an applicant’s name. Nor does s 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. In the past the Tribunal has adopted a practice of suppressing the applicant’s name after holding a private hearing. That is a sensible practice as North J pointed out in VAI v Forgie (2003) 72 ALD 800 at [3]. Alternatively parties’ names have been suppressed in the publication of a decision as part of a s 35 order where the Tribunal has been satisfied it is desirable to do so.

5.      In the present case there is no reason for the applicant’s name or the name of his previous employer to be suppressed. That information is already publicly available in the Full Federal Court decision of Dibb and Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126. Disclosure of such information does not prejudice the applicant. The applicant’s request for the suppression of names is denied.

I certify that the 5 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B J McCabe.

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate:      Sam J Appleton

Date of Hearing   5 April 2005
Date of Decision   26 May 2005

The applicant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Ms Brennan of Counsel.