Stamoulis, Spiros v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia and Stamoulis, Harry v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia and Stamoulis, Helen v Deputy..

Case [1997] FCA 1133

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INCOME TAX - Assessable income - Foreign exchange loans - facility agreement made before 19 February 1986 - interest adjustable at end of six-monthly or other specified “interest periods” - whether “eligible contract” - whether loan wholly or partly “rolled over” at end of each interest period - effect of bank’s advice that “loan matures” at end of interest period and “rollover” to be arranged - whether roll-over requires expiration of term of loan or extension or other variation at election of borrower - whether foreign exchange losses deductible under s 82Z(1) - borrowed funds applied in purchase of a business including stock and debtors - business disposed of before foreign exchange loss realized - whether foreign exchange loss deductible under s 51(1) - whether occasion for loss to be found in the carrying on of the business - whether loss on capital or revenue account

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 51, 82U, 82V, 82W, 82Z

WORDS AND PHRASES - “wholly or partly rolled over” - “roll-over” “extended”

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 82W(1)

Commissioner of Taxation v Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (1994) 54 FCR 25 applied
K D Morris & Sons Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd (1980) 146 CLR 165 applied
AVCO Financial Services Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1979] ATC 4,560
referred to
Lombard Australia Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1980] ATC 4,151 referred
to
Pacific Management Pty Placer Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1995] ATC
4,459 referred to
Commissioner of Taxation v Riverside Road Lodge Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (1990) 23 FCR
305 referred to
Steele v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1997] ATC 4,239 referred to
AVCO Financial Services Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1982) 150 CLR 510
distinguished
Thiess Toyota Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1978] ATC 4,463 distinguished
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cadbury-Fry Pascall (Australia) Pty Ltd [1979] ATC
4,346 distinguished
Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1976) 137
CLR 373 applied

SPIROS STAMOULIS v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

VG 476 of 1994

HARRY STAMOULIS v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

VG 100 of 1995

HELEN STAMOULIS v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

VG 101 of 1995

MELINA STAMOULIS v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

VG 102 of 1995

RYAN J
MELBOURNE
29 OCTOBER 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 476 of 1994

BETWEEN:

SPIROS STAMOULIS
Applicant

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 OCTOBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The application be dismissed.

  1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

Continue reading Stamoulis, Spiros v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the C...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stamoulis, Spiros v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia and Stamoulis, Harry v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia and Stamoulis, Helen v Deputy.. [1997] FCA 1133
Case
[1997] FCA 1133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Spiros Stamoulis, Harry Stamoulis, and Helen Stamoulis, who were contesting assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation regarding their tax liabilities. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs argued that the assessments were incorrect and sought to have them set aside.

The legal issues that the court had to determine included the interpretation of specific provisions within the income tax law and whether the assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner were justified based on the evidence presented. The plaintiffs contended that the assessments did not properly account for certain deductions and expenses that they were entitled to claim, while the Deputy Commissioner argued that the assessments were accurate and in accordance with the law.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the Deputy Commissioner had correctly applied the tax law and that the assessments were not flawed. The plaintiffs' claims for deductions and expenses were either not substantiated or were not allowable under the relevant provisions. Consequently, the court upheld the assessments, and the plaintiffs' challenge was dismissed. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the Deputy Commissioner’s costs, with the costs to be taxed if the parties could not agree on the amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application be dismissed.

2.

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:

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.