IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 101 of 1996
BETWEEN:
JOHN GORDON KELLAS
APPLICANTAND:
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
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
QG 101 of 1996
BETWEEN:
JOHN GORDON KELLAS
APPLICANTAND:
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DRUMMOND J
DATE:
26 JUNE 1998
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by Mr Kellas under s 44 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) against a decision of Mr Beddoe, Senior Member of the Tribunal. The point that brought the matter up before the Tribunal arose out of the Commissioner’s assessment to income tax of Mr Kellas for the 1994 year. He received, in respect of that year of income, imputation credits of $19,057. However, the tax assessed on his taxable income for that year was only $3,843 and the only benefit Mr Kellas received in respect of the imputation credits was an amount equivalent to the tax he had to pay for that year.
His real complaint is that the law is an unfair law and should be remedied. He has not identified any error of law in the reasoning of the Tribunal Member and it is only such errors of law that this Court has power to correct. I have read Mr Beddoe’s decision and I can find no error of law in it. Essentially for the reasons given by Mr Beddoe, I dismiss the appeal.
I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond.
Associate:
Dated: 26 June 1998
- AGLC
- Kellas, John Gordon v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] FCA 844
- Case
- [1998] FCA 844
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the deductions claimed by Kellas were properly characterised as expenses for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) and whether they were deductible under the statute. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income and whether they were ordinary and necessary in the carrying on of Kellas’s business.
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. Ultimately, the court held that the deductions claimed by Kellas were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income. Furthermore, the court found that certain expenses were not ordinary and necessary in the carrying on of Kellas’s business. Consequently, the court dismissed Kellas's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to disallow the deductions.
The appeal is dismissed with no orders for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
Note:
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.