Salemade Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue

Case [2021] QCA 164

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Salemade Pty Limited & Ors v Commissioner of State Revenue [2021] QCA 164

PARTIES:

SALEMADE PTY LIMITED
ACN 102 498 153 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE POSIBLE UNIT TRUST
(first appellant)
SALEMADE PTY LIMITED
ACN 102 498 153 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BIG TREE DISCRETIONARY TRUST
(second appellant)
SALEMADE PTY LIMITED
ACN 102 498 153 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SALEMADE UNIT TRUST
(third appellant)
AUSTRALIAN TABLEFORM DESIGN PTY LIMITED
ACN 119 530 399
(fourth appellant)
OAKDALE BUILDING SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 091 173 812
(fifth appellant)
OAKDALE GROUP PTY LIMITED
ACN 146 634 648
(sixth appellant)
LILLIES GROUP PTY LIMITED
ACN 100 080 064
(seventh appellant)
ACN 123 577 453 PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY, OAKDALE QUEENSLAND PTY LIMITED)
(eighth appellant)
POPPY’S ON OAKDALE ROAD PTY LIMITED
ACN 115 475 860 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE POPPY’S UNIT TRUST
(ninth appellant)
v
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3148 of 2021
SC No 9327 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2021] QSC 19 (Dalton J)

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison, Mullins and Bond JJA

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

2.   The parties have liberty to apply in relation to the form of order, within 4 days of the date of the delivery of this judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

TAXES AND DUTIES – PAYROLL TAX – OBJECTIONS, APPEALS AND REVIEWS – where the appellants appealed against certain decisions by the respondent on their objections to a series of payroll tax assessments and amended assessments issued pursuant to the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Qld) – where the primary judge dismissed the appeal – whether s 71(2)(c)(i) of the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Qld) encompasses the power of a director of a single director company to make a written resolution – whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the New South Wales payments, which were the basis of the subject assessments, were not “interstate wages” for the purposes of the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Qld)

TAXES AND DUTIES – PAYROLL TAX – LIABILITY TO TAXATION – EXEMPTIONS – GROUPING OF EMPLOYERS – whether the director of multiple single director companies has a controlling interest in businesses carried on by those companies under s 71(2)(c)(i) of the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Qld) – where the primary judge noted the literal terms of s 71(2)(c)(i), but held that the provision should be interpreted to apply to such a director – whether the primary judge erred in her construction of that provision

TAXES AND DUTIES – PAYROLL TAX – ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF PAYROLL TAX – where the various assessments challenged by the appellants included as “interstate wages” certain payments made by the fifth and sixth appellants to certain contractors – where the Commissioner and primary judge both concluded that the appellants had not demonstrated that the payments fell within the applicable exemptions – where the…

Continue reading Salemade Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Salemade Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue [2021] QCA 164
Case
[2021] QCA 164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Salemade Pty Limited and others appealed against decisions made by the Commissioner of State Revenue of Queensland in relation to payroll tax assessments and amended assessments issued under the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Qld). The appellants contested the assessments on the basis that certain payments were not "interstate wages" and that the director of a single director company did not have the power to make a written resolution under s 71(2)(c)(i) of the Act. The primary judge dismissed the appeal, and the appellants sought to overturn this decision.

The legal issues in the appeal revolved around the interpretation of s 71(2)(c)(i) of the Payroll Tax Act 1971 (Qld) and whether it encompassed the power of a director of a single director company to make a written resolution. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to prove that the New South Wales payments, which were the basis of the subject assessments, were not "interstate wages" for the purposes of the Act. The appellants argued that the literal terms of s 71(2)(c)(i) should be interpreted to apply to a director of multiple single director companies who has a controlling interest in businesses carried on by those companies.

The court found that the primary judge's interpretation of s 71(2)(c)(i) was not in error. The court held that the provision should not be interpreted to apply to a director of multiple single director companies who has a controlling interest in businesses carried on by those companies. Furthermore, the court held that the appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the New South Wales payments were not "interstate wages." The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the parties have liberty to apply in relation to the form of order within 4 days of the date of the delivery of this judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

2. The parties have liberty to apply in relation to the form of order, within 4 days of the date of the delivery of this judgment.

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.