Rusanov v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3)

[2025] FCAFC 117

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rusanov v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2025] FCAFC 117

Appeal from:

Rusanov v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 777

File number:

QUD 459 of 2024

Judgment of:

LOGAN, FEUTRILL AND WHEATLEY JJ

Date of judgment:

7 August 2025

Date of publication of revised reasons:

28 August 2025

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal against dismissal of appeal from decision of the Administration Appeals Tribunal affirming an objection decision of the Commissioner of Taxation – where no substantive submissions filed by the appellant in accordance with directions – where appellant did not appear – appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance with directions.  

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 25, 37M, 37N, 37P

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 167

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s 14ZZK

Cases cited:

Rawson Finances Proprietary Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (2013) 296 ALR 307

Rusanov v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCAFC 11

Rusanov v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2025] FCAFC 116

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Queensland

National Practice Area:

Taxation

Number of paragraphs:

26

Date of hearing:

7 August 2025

Counsel for the Appellants:

The appellants did not appear

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms CJ Conway

Solicitor for the Respondent:

McInnes Wilson Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 459 of 2024

BETWEEN:

MAXIM RUSANOV

First Appellant

LIUDMILA RUSANOVA

Second Appellant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	LOGAN, FEUTRILL AND WHEATLEY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	7 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on a lump sum basis to be fixed by a registrar if not agreed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

LOGAN J:

1. Earlier this morning, for reasons respectively delivered ex tempore (Rusanov v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2025] FCAFC 116), the court refused an application by the solicitor for, at least, the male appellant, for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was then called on for hearing. When called on, the solicitor who had previously appeared for, at least, the male appellant, signified that she had no instructions to appear on the substantive hearing of the appeal and sought leave to withdraw on the basis that a notice of withdrawal from acting would be filed in due course. Such leave was granted. There was an appearance on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) by counsel.

2. The court then had the appeal called in the usual way:  three times in the public area.  The resultant report by the court officer was that there was no appearance by the appellants.  In those circumstances and as the Rules contemplate, the Commissioner made application orally for the appeal to be dismissed on the basis of an event of default, namely, failure of appearance, as well as, as…