Seller v Commissioner of Taxation

Case [2007] FCA 537


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Seller v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 537

ROSS SELLER v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
NSD 1998 OF 2006

SUSAN TANKARD v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
NSD 1999 OF 2006

GYLES J
11 APRIL 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1998 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

ROSS SELLER
Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 APRIL 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding as between solicitor and client.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1999 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SUSAN TANKARD
Applicant

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 APRIL 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding as between solicitor and client.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1998 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

ROSS SELLER
Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1999 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SUSAN TANKARD
Applicant

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 APRIL 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Each of these applications was filed on 13 October 2006.  On 28 November 2006, an order was made in each matter that the applicant file and serve evidence upon which he or she intended to rely on or before 6 March 2007.  That was not complied with and no application had been made to extend the time.  On 13 March 2007, upon explanation on affidavit, the time was extended to 3 April 2007.  No evidence has yet been filed by either applicant.

  2. The matter was stood over to this morning at 9.30 am.  It is now 9.50 am and there has been no appearance for either applicant.  My chambers was not communicated with in any way about the failure to appear this morning.  It is also worth noting that the applicants are married, and the applicant Seller is a solicitor practising in New South Wales. 

  3. I find the approach to this matter to have been totally unsatisfactory.  The orders of the Court have been flouted without proper explanation, and there is no appearance this morning.  In those circumstances, each application is dismissed.  The applicant is to pay the costs of the proceeding of the Commissioner as between solicitor and client. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:       13 April 2007

The Applicants did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr M J Donohoe of Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 11 April 2007
Date of Judgment: 11 April 2007
Details
AGLC
Seller v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 537
Case
[2007] FCA 537
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Seller sought to challenge a decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation regarding the applicant's tax liability for the 2015 financial year. The Commissioner had reassessed the applicant's income tax, resulting in a significant increase in tax payable. Seller contested this reassessment, arguing that the Commissioner's decision was flawed and that the tax liability should be reduced.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Commissioner's reassessment of the applicant's tax liability was legally sound. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Commissioner had correctly identified and taxed income that the applicant had failed to declare. Additionally, the Court considered whether the applicant's arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 were persuasive.

The Court found that the Commissioner had correctly identified the omitted income and had applied the relevant legislative provisions accurately. The Court emphasised that the burden of proof lay with the applicant to demonstrate that the reassessment was incorrect, a burden that the applicant had not met. The Court also rejected the applicant's contentions regarding the interpretation of the statutory provisions, finding that the Commissioner's interpretation was consistent with the ordinary meaning of the words used in the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding as between solicitor and client.

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

GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.