Hepples v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia

This matter concerned an appeal by Peter William Hepples against a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The dispute revolved around whether a certain amount constituted an assessable capital gain for the appellant. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation and application of subsections 160M(6) and 160M(7) of the relevant tax legislation. The Commissioner had relied on both provisions in the court below to argue that the amount in question was an assessable capital gain. The Federal Court had found against the Commissioner on section 160M(6) but, by a majority, for the Commissioner on section 160M(7). The Commissioner sought leave to rely on a notice of contention to argue that section 160M(7) should apply, even if section 160M(6) did not.

The Commissioner's argument was that section 160M(7) was expressly made subject to other provisions of the Part, meaning it would only operate where other provisions did not. Therefore, if section 160M(6) applied, section 160M(7) would not. The appellant opposed the Commissioner's application to rely on the notice of contention, arguing that the amount in dispute was relatively small and that the meaning of section 160M(6) had been settled by the Federal Court. The appellant also contended that they had not been adequately prepared to argue the meaning of section 160M(6) in the High Court.