Reg v Cain; Ex parte Evatt - [1975] HCA 57

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ.

THE QUEEN v. CAIN; Ex parte EVATT

(1975) 133 CLR 37

10 December 1975

Income Tax (Cth)

Income Tax (Cth)—Objection by taxpayer to assessment—Disallowance by Commissioner—Reference to Board of Review—Statement containing Commissioner's reasons for disallowing taxpayer's claim sent to Board by Commissioner—Sufficiency of statement—Income Tax Regulations, reg. 35*. * Regulation 35 (1) of the Income Tax Regulations (Cth) provides: "The Commissioner, in referring to a decision to a Board of Review in accordance with sub-section (1) of s. 188 of the Act or s. 189 of the Act, shall furnish to the Board with a printed or typewritten statement, in quadruplicate, containing-(a) . . . (b) . . . (c) the Commissioner's reasons for disallowing the taxpayer's claims."

Decisions

December 10.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. I have the advantage in this application of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Gibbs. I agree that the order nisi should be discharged for the reason that the respondent Commissioner had not failed to comply with the provisions of reg. 35 of the Income Tax Regulations. I also agree that in principle the application cannot be distinguished from the case of Sutton v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1959) 100 CLR 518 . In my opinion, that case was correctly decided and governs the present application. I think that it is rightly said in the reasons for judgment in that case that the provisions of reg. 35 are included for the benefit of the Board of Review. In my opinion, the requirement of reg. 35 (2) is merely to inform the objecting taxpayer of the material which has been sent to the Board. I do not think that the presence of that sub-regulation alters the intention of the provisions of the regulation as a whole. (at p40)

2. As I have indicated elsewhere, the duty of the Commissioner is fully to inform the taxpayer of the basis upon which the assessment is raised. In this case, in my opinion, he did so. It is my opinion that it would be preferable if, having from the taxpayer material in amplification of the formal grounds of objection, the Commissioner presented that material or an accurate abstract or summary of it to the Board to facilitate the work of the Board. But the Commissioner is not required by the regulations to inform the Board of his views as to that material. (at p40)

3. In my opinion the rule nisi should be discharged. (at p40)

McTIERNAN J. I agree that the rule nisi should be discharged. (at p40)

2. In my opinion Sutton v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation is an appropriate precedent on which to base the decision in the matter. (at p40)

GIBBS J. This is an application for a writ of mandamus directed to the Commissioner of Taxation. The prosecutor - the taxpayer - lodged objections to amended assessments to income tax made by the Commissioner for…

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.

Continue reading Reg v Cain; Ex parte Evatt

Details

AGLC: Reg v Cain; Ex parte Evatt [1975] HCA 57
Case: [1975] HCA 57
Decision Date: 10 December 1975

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Reg v Cain; Ex parte Evatt* involved an application for a writ of prohibition brought by Evatt against the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, presided over by Mr Justice Cain. The dispute concerned the validity of certain actions taken by the Arbitration Court in relation to a dispute between the Australian Workers' Union and the Commonwealth. Evatt sought to prohibit the Arbitration Court from proceeding further in the matter.

The central legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the Arbitration Court had jurisdiction to make an order for the deregistration of the Australian Workers' Union. This question hinged on the interpretation of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904* (Cth) and, in particular, the scope of the powers conferred upon the Arbitration Court by that legislation. The applicant argued that the Court had exceeded its statutory authority.

The High Court, in its judgment, considered the provisions of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act* relating to the deregistration of organisations. The Court reasoned that the Act, as it stood, did not grant the Arbitration Court the power to deregister an organisation on the grounds that were being considered in the proceedings before the Arbitration Court. The Court applied the principle that statutory powers must be exercised strictly within the limits prescribed by the enabling legislation, and that any action taken beyond those limits is invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Consequently, the High Court made absolute the order nisi for prohibition, thereby preventing the Arbitration Court from proceeding with the deregistration of the Australian Workers' Union.

Orders