Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia

Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd (Applicant) appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which affirmed a decision that the Applicant's activities did not satisfy the definition of Research and Development (R&D) activities for the purpose of section 355-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). The Applicant sought to have the AAT review its claims for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 financial years together. The AAT refused to include the 2016 year in the review, and the Applicant challenged this decision. The Applicant argued that the AAT failed to undertake an independent review, did not consider mandatory considerations, and did not provide procedural fairness by excluding the 2016 year from the review. The Applicant also argued that the AAT's adoption of the respondent's submissions without attribution demonstrated a failure to undertake an independent review.

The court considered whether the AAT's adoption of the respondent's submissions without attribution demonstrated a failure to undertake an independent review, whether the AAT failed to consider mandatory considerations, and whether the AAT denied the Applicant procedural fairness by excluding the 2016 year from the review. The court held that the AAT's adoption of the respondent's submissions without attribution did not demonstrate a failure to undertake an independent review, as the AAT undertook a permissible assessment of the submissions and evidence and made findings of fact on the relevant issues. The court also held that the Applicant's claims and assertions about factual matters made to the AAT were not properly characterised as mandatory considerations, and that there was no obligation on the AAT to make further enquiries. Finally, the court held that there was no error in the AAT's decision to exclude the 2016 year from the review, as the Applicant's application to include the 2016 year was made late, and the Applicant had not demonstrated that the exclusion of the 2016 year from the review resulted in a failure of administrative justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, unless the Applicant filed and served written submissions on costs by a specified date.