Legal Research
Cases
Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v The Commr of Taxation of the Cth of Australia The Commr of Taxation of the Cth of Australia v Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v

Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v The Commr of Taxation of the Cth of Australia The Commr of Taxation of the Cth of Australia v Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v

Case [1997] FCA 659 26 March 1997

Statutory Interpretation

Taxation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

INCOME TAX - assessable income - income - joint venture for construction project - principles relevant to recognition of profit from long-term construction contracts - relevance of business and accounting practice - income to be brought to account on an annual basis - analysis of complex transactions in relation to the construction project - characterisation of payments received from the project in the hands of each taxpayer - whether income in accordance with ordinary concepts and usage of mankind - relevant considerations.
INCOME TAX - Tax benefit in connection with a Pt IVA scheme - identification of scheme - whether taxpayers entered into the scheme for the dominant purpose of enabling the taxpayers to obtain a tax benefit - reasonable expectation of inclusion of amount in taxpayer’s assessable income - liability of trustee under Pt IVA.
INCOME TAX - Additional tax - remission of additional tax - whether objection decisions reviewable under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 - relevant considerations.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth); ss.6, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 170, 177A, 177C, 177D, 177F, 223, 226, 227,
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth); s.14ZZA, 14ZS,

H.W. Coyle Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (NZ) (1980) 80 ATC 6012
Arthur Murray (NSW) Pty Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 114 CLR 314
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Dunn (1989) 85 ALR 244
The Commissioner of Taxes (South Australia) v Executor, Trustee and Agency Company of South Australia Limited (1938) 63 CLR 108
Barratt v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 36 FCR 222 at 224
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Citibank Limited (1993) 93 ATC 4691 at 4698-4702
XCO Pty Limited v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1971) 124 CLR 343
Brent v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1971) 125 CLR 418
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Limited (1995) 183 CLR 168
Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Stokes (1996) 141 ALR 653
The Union-Fidelity Trustee Company of Australia Limited v The Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 119 CLR 177
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Limited (1996) 141 ALR 92 said (at 96)
The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Peabody (1994) 181 CLR 359
Dunn v Shapowloff [1978] 2 NSWLR 235 at 249
G.P. International Pipecoaters Pty Limited v The Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 170 CLR 124
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 199
Leonard v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1919) 26 CLR 175
Rowe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1982) 60 FLR 475
Commissioner of Taxation v Galland (1986) 162 CLR 408 at 414
The Bohemians Club v The Acting Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1918) 24 CLR 334
Stevenson v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 29 FCR 282 at 299

Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1988)19 FCR 442

GROLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD & ORS v THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No. VG 209, 269, 409 and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v The Commr of Taxation of the...

Details

AGLC: Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v The Commr of Taxation of the Cth of Australia The Commr of Taxation of the Cth of Australia v Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v [1997] FCA 659
Case: [1997] FCA 659
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved appeals by Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd and others (appellants) against the Commissioner of Taxation (respondent) concerning income tax assessments related to the construction of the Rialto building in Melbourne. The respondents also brought cross-appeals against the appellants. The key issues included whether Grollo Nominees Pty Ltd (Grofam) derived income from the construction of the Rialto building before 27 October 1983 and whether the agreements executed on 27 October 1983 were a scheme within the meaning of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The court found that Grofam did derive income from the construction of the Rialto building prior to 27 October 1983 and that the agreements constituted a scheme for tax avoidance. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that Grofam was building at cost for Grollo Australia and that the notice executed on 27 October 1983 could affect the incidence of taxation. The court also found that the Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of the documents and agreements. The appeals and cross-appeals were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Orders