Moore v The Commonwealth

[1951] HCA 10

82 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

547

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

MOORE AND ANOTHER

P l a in t if f s ;

AND

THE COMMONWEALTH AND ANOTHER .

D e f e n d a n t s .

Constitutional Law (Cth.)—Powers of Parliament—Taxation— ^ Laws imposing

H. C. OF A.

taxation ”—“ Shall deal with one subject of taxation only ”— The Constitution

1951.

(63 & 64 Viet. c. 12), ss. 51 [ii.), (xxxix.), 55— Wool Sales Deduction (jfdminis-

tration) Act 1950 {No. 29 of 1950)— Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 1) 1950

Melbouene,

{No. 30 of 1950)— Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 2) 1950 {No. 31 of 1950).

Feb. 13,' 16 ;

The Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 1) 1950, the Wool Sales Deduction Act

March 22.

{No. 2) 1950 and the Wool Sales Deduction (Administration) Act 1950 require

Latham C.J.,

Dixon,

a producer of'wool to pay to the Commonwealth a prescribed proportion of

McTiernan,

Webb, Fullafjar

the sale value of the wool (if he sells it in Australia) or of the appraised value

and Kitto JJ.

(if he exports it).

The amount is to be paid to the Federal Commissioner of

Taxation and a certificate of the amount paid issued to the producer. The producer is to send all such certificates to the commissioner with his income- tax return for the jmar of income in which the wool is sold or exported ; the commissioner is to credit the amounts they show against the producer’s liability for income tax and provisional tax for that year, provisional tax for the next financial year and any income tax already due and unpaid. If

*

’

there is any unapplied residue of the amounts of the certificates, it is to be

repaid to the producer.

Held, by the whole Court, that the Acts were within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament. They were laws with respect to taxation within the meaning of s. 51 (ii.), and were not invalidated by s. 55, of the Constitution. Within the meaning of s. 55 (by Dixon, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ.) they v'ere not laws imposing taxation ; (by Latham C.J. and McTiernan J.) the Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 1) and the Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 2) were laws imposing taxation, but neither of them dealt with any subject other than taxation or with more than one subject of taxation, and the Wool Sales Deduction (Administration) Act was not a law

■ imjjosing taxation.

■

5t8 HIGH COURT

[1951.

H. G. OF A.

D e m u r r e r .

1951.Desmond Carty Moore and Tliomas Anthony Darcy brought an

jUookkaction in the Higli Court against the Commonwealth and Patrick

V.

T he

Silvesta McGovern (the Federal Commissioner of Taxation), claim­

COMMON-

ing declarations that the Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 1) 1950,

WE.-u/rii,the Wool Sales Deduction Act {No. 2) 1950 and the Wool Sales Deduction {Administration) Act 1950 (which are hereinafter referred…