Heran v Commissioner of Taxation

Case [2006] FCA 110


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Heran v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 110

COSTS – motion to strike out allegations – motion successful – whether costs should be taxed and paid on an indemnity basis

STEPHEN SIDNEY HERAN v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Q125 of 2002

MAGGSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRIAN HERAN DISCRETIONARY TRUST v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Q126 of 2002

BRIAN JOSEPH HERAN v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Q127 of 2002

BRIAN JOSEPH HERAN, STEPHEN SIDNEY HERAN, MAGGSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRIAN HERAN DISCRETIONARY TRUST, HERAN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HERAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST, NORTHBANK HOMES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NORTHBANK TRUST v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Q157 of 2002

KIEFEL J

17 FEBRUARY 2006

BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q125 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN SIDNEY HERAN
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q126 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

MAGGSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRIAN HERAN DISCRETIONARY TRUST
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q127 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

BRIAN JOSEPH HERAN
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q157 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

BRIAN JOSEPH HERAN
FIRST APPLICANT

STEPHEN SIDNEY HERAN
SECOND APPLICANT

MAGGSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRIAN HERAN DISCRETIONARY TRUST
THIRD APPLICANT

HERAN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HERAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST
FOURTH APPLICANT

NORTHBANK HOMES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NORTHBANK TRUST
FIFTH APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q125 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN SIDNEY HERAN
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

AND

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q126 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

MAGGSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRIAN HERAN DISCRETIONARY TRUST
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

AND

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q127 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

BRIAN JOSEPH HERAN
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

AND

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q157 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

BRIAN JOSEPH HERAN
FIRST APPLICANT

STEPHEN SIDNEY HERAN
SECOND APPLICANT

MAGGSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRIAN HERAN DISCRETIONARY TRUST
THIRD APPLICANT

HERAN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HERAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST
FOURTH APPLICANT

NORTHBANK HOMES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NORTHBANK TRUST
FIFTH APPLICANT

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE:

17 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(COSTS)

  1. These proceedings were dismissed on the first day of hearing on the Commissioner’s concession.  This followed a motion by the applicants in each case to strike out certain allegations in the Commissioner’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions as irrelevant.

  2. The applicants are entitled to their costs of the proceedings.  They submit that these costs should be taxed and paid on an indemnity basis.  They submit that the Commissioner has not acted as a model litigant in pursuing these actions.  Issues raised by the Commissioner in them were not part of the objection decisions and are inconsistent with the income in question, being that of Raftland Pty Ltd, the applicant in Q173 of 202, the case which the Commissioner pursued.  They allege that the Commissioner has not acted with propriety and that this is shown by the lateness of the concession.

  3. I do not consider there is any evidence of impropriety.  It is regrettable that costs were incurred on unnecessary issues and that they were not conceded at an earlier point.  On the other hand if the actions were plainly not maintainable one would have expected the applicants to apply to strike them out at an early point.  Litigation is often conducted on alternative bases and upon issues which cannot all be successful.  A successful party may sometimes be deprived of costs on unmeritorious issues.  I do not however think that it is suggested that, in every case where alternative claims are made, that an order for indemnity costs should follow.  In the present case there are no matters in the Commissioner’s conduct of the litigation which suggest that that course is appropriate.

  4. There will be orders in each proceeding that the Commissioner pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated:            17 February 2006

IN THE MATTER OF Q125 OF 2002
IN THE MATTER OF Q126 OF 2002
IN THE MATTER OF Q127 OF 2002
IN THE MATTER OF Q157 OF 2002

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D G Russell QC with Mr H Alexander
Solicitor for the Applicant: Tobin King Lateef
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P E Hack SC with Mr P A Looney
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 19 October 2005
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2006
Details
AGLC
Heran v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 110
Case
[2006] FCA 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Heran v Commissioner of Taxation, the applicant sought review of a decision by the Commissioner of Taxation regarding the taxation of certain income. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant contested the Commissioner's assessment of income tax for the financial years in question, arguing that certain deductions claimed were wrongly disallowed. The Commissioner maintained that the deductions were not allowable under the relevant taxation provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to claim specific deductions for expenses incurred in earning assessable income. The court had to interpret the relevant sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act and determine the applicability of these provisions to the facts of the case. A secondary issue involved the burden of proof, as the Commissioner argued that the onus lay on the applicant to demonstrate that the claimed deductions were allowable.

The court found that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proof in relation to the claimed deductions. The evidence provided was insufficient to substantiate the expenses claimed. Therefore, the court upheld the Commissioner's decision to disallow the deductions. The court further held that the applicant was not entitled to the deductions in question and dismissed the application for review. As part of the final orders, the court mandated that the Commissioner pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

1. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.