Farrelly and Other

This matter concerned an application by Mr Farrelly to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) seeking a review of a decision made by ACT Health concerning his fringe benefits. The AAT, constituted by W Frost M, was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision made by ACT Health regarding Mr Farrelly's fringe benefits was a reviewable decision under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) or any other relevant enactment. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 conferred jurisdiction for such a review, and if so, whether Mr Farrelly's situation fell within the scope of that jurisdiction. A secondary issue arose regarding the timeliness of Mr Farrelly's application.

The Tribunal reasoned that its jurisdiction is not general but is conferred by specific enactments. It noted that while the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 is listed in the AAT's Reviewable Decisions List, jurisdiction to review decisions under that Act is limited to those made pursuant to subsection 67(6) and section 78A of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. These provisions relate to objections by employers against decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation. The Tribunal found that Mr Farrelly was not an employer, and the decision under review was made by ACT Health, not the Commissioner of Taxation. Therefore, the specific provisions conferring jurisdiction were not applicable to his circumstances. The Tribunal also observed that Mr Farrelly's application was made ten months after the decision was received, exceeding the prescribed time limits under both the AAT Act and the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Farrelly's application pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the AAT Act on the grounds that the decision was not reviewable by the Tribunal.