Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 26 June 2009 29 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2009] HCAB 5 (26 June 2009)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, and refused special leave to appeal.

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Special Leave Dismissed

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the May–June 2009 sittings.

Spriggs v Commissioner of Taxation; Riddell v Commissioner of Taxation

High Court of Australia: [2009] HCA 22.

Judgment delivered: 18 June 2009.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Taxes and duties — Income tax — Deductions — Appellant taxpayers professional Australian Rules football player and professional rugby league player — Each paid fee to manager for negotiating contract to play with new club — Whether management fee deductible under Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 8-1(1) as outgoing “incurred in gaining or producing” or “necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing” assessable income — Whether each appellant carrying on business exploiting sporting prowess and associated celebrity — Relevance of exclusion from definition of “business” in s 995-1 of “occupation as an employee” — Relevance of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena (1971) 45 ALJR 426; 2 ATR 541.
Taxes and duties — Income tax — Deductions — Whether management fee not deductible pursuant to s 8-1(2)(a) as an “outgoing of capital, or of a capital nature”.
Words and phrases — “business”, “incurred in gaining or producing”, “necessarily incurred in carrying on a business”, “occupation as an employee”, “ordinary income”, “outgoing of capital”.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2008] FCAFC 150; (2008) 170 FCR 135.

2: Cases Reserved

The following cases have been reserved for judgment by the High Court of Australia.

**** Indicates cases reserved for judgment since High Court Bulletin 4 [2009] HCAB 4.

Administrative Law

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO & Ors

S568/2008: [2009] HCATrans 71.

Date heard: 23 April 2009 — Judgment reserved.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Administrative law — Jurisdictional error — Procedural fairness — Invitation to attend hearing addressed and sent to Appellant but not authorised recipient — Appellant and authorised recipient living at same address — Appellant subsequently attending hearing and calling witnesses — Whether breach of statutory procedural requirement to notify authorised recipient constitutes jurisdictional error — Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 441G.
Administrative law — Discretionary relief — Procedural fairness — Whether no practical unfairness followed from breach of statutory procedural requirement — Whether absence of practical unfairness is a matter that should be considered when determining whether or not to refuse relief on discretionary grounds.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2008] FCAFC 122; (2008) 172 FCR 152; (2008) 102 ALD 541.

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read High Court Bulletin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] HCAB 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Spriggs v Commissioner of Taxation; Riddell v Commissioner of Taxation, the High Court of Australia considered the tax deductibility of management fees paid by professional athletes. The Court had to determine if these fees were deductible under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) as expenses incurred in producing assessable income or if they were capital expenses. The Court also examined whether the exclusion of employment income from the definition of business in s 995-1 affected the deductibility of the fees. The Court concluded that the management fees were not deductible under the Act as they were of a capital nature.

The High Court of Australia also reserved judgment on several administrative law cases, including Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO & Ors, which involves the procedural fairness requirements under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Court was to consider whether a breach of statutory procedural requirements amounted to a jurisdictional error and whether the absence of practical unfairness could be a factor in refusing discretionary relief.

In addition, the High Court of Australia reserved judgment on Pape v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia, a case concerning the constitutional validity of a tax bonus provided under the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 (Cth). The Court had to decide if the tax bonus was a gift and if the Act was a law with respect to taxation, as required by the Constitution.

Orders