Lombardo, Dante v. The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1979] FCA 105

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER: , Bowen C.J., Franki and Toohey JJ. DATE OF ORDER: 17 October 1979. WHERE MADE: Sydney THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay to the Commissioner his costs of the

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) W.A. No. G3 of 1979

ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

BOWEN C.J.: This is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia given on 26 October 1978. The Matter came before the Supreme Court by way of appeal from Board of Review No. 2. The taxpayer's reference to the Board concerned assessments to income tax for the years of income ended 30 June 1968, 1969 and 1973 in respect of profits arising from the sale of land. By consent his reference to

the Board was heard jointly with references by his brother

and father, who had also objected to assessments to tax in respect of profit arising from the sale of land in the same income years, The Board upheld the decisions of the Commissioner in respect of each reference and confirmed the assessments.

One set of reasons was delivered by the Board. The Board were of the opinion that on the balance of prob- abilities the land concerned in the references was acquired for the purpose of profit-making by sale. They concluded the profit was in each case properly included in the assessable incomes of the taxpayer, his brother and his father under the

first limb of s.26(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936

(hereafter referred to as "the Act"). The taxpayer appealed separately to the Supreme Court. Such an appeal lies "from any decision of the Board which involves a question of law" (s.196). The Supreme Court dismissed the taxpayer.'s appeal upon the ground that there was no question of law involved in the Board's decision. Before this Court Counsel for the taxpayer sought to attack the decision of the Supreme Court upon three grounds:

1. That a decision of the Board that s.26(a) of the Act applies to the facts of the case is always a decision involving a question of law;
2. That the Board's decision involved a question of law in that ut concluded that Dante

s.26(a) by having adopted the intencion and activities of his brother Vince;

3. That there were submissions of law made to the Board which were not adverted to in the reasons of the Board but which were "involved" so as to provide the basis of an appeal.

proposition can be sustained. The decision making process of the Board involves the ascertaining of primary facts - the

facta probantia, which are then used to adduce the ultimate

fact in issue - the factum probandum (Hayes v. Federal

Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 96 C.L.R. 47 at p.51 per

Fullagar J.). The ultimate fact depends upon the application of the Act to the primary facts but except where a question of construction is involved, the conclusion from the primary facts will generally be a question of fact.

In Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14 at p.33, Lord

Radcliffe in the House of Lords approved what had been said

by Lord Sterndale in the Court of Appeal in Currie v. Inland

Revenue Commissioners [1921] 2 K.B. 332 where the question

was whether a person waS carrying on a "profession" within

the meaning of s.39(c) of the Finance (No.2) Act 1915.

There, Lord Sterndale made it clear that in cases where a statute is involved its application need not be a question of

"There may be circumstances in which nobody could arrive at any other conclusion than that what the man was doing was carrying on a profession; and therefore looking at the matter from the point of view of a judge directing a jury, the judge would be bound to direct them that on the facts they could only find that he was carrying on a profession. That reduces it to a question of law. On the other hand, there may be facts on which the direction would have to be given the other way. But between those two extremes there is a very large tract of country in which the matter becomes a question of degree; and where that is the case the question is undoubtedly in my opinion, one of fact; and if the Commissioners came to a conclusion of fact without having applied any wrong principle then their decision is final upon the matter."

The position where a statute uses words which are not

technical was elaborated by Jordan C.J. in The Australian Gas

Light Co. 'v. The Valuer General [1940] 40 S.R. N.S.W. 126 as

"(1) The question what is the meaning of an ordinary English word or phrase as used in the Statute is one of fact not of law ... This question is to be resolved by the relevant tribunal itself, by considering the word in its context with the assistance of dictionaries and other books, and not by expert evidence ..., although evidence us receivable as to the meaning of technical terms «ee, and the meaning of a technical legal term is a question of law ...

(2) The question whether a particular set of facts comes within the description of such a word or phrase 1s one of fact ..."

(See also Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken

Hill South Limited (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150 at p.160; and Brutus

In the above situations where application of the statute is clearly a question of fact, a question of law will only arise if there was no evidence to support the conclusion of fact or it is obvious from the transcript of the case that the Board has misunderstood the law in some relevant

particular (Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14 at p.33 per

On the other hand a question of law will be involved overs technical legal words must be construed before the ; Statute can be applied to the found facts. Also, as stated

previously, where the facts must fall clearly within or without the statute.

Counsel for the taxpayer relied upon the judgment of Fullagar J. in Hayes v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 96 C.L.R. 41 for his first submission. He specifically relied on the passage in his Honour's judgment (at p.51):

"Where the factum probandum involves a term used in a statute, the question whether the accepted facta probantia establish that factum probandum will generaliy - so far as I can see, always - be a question of law "

However, this statement is in the context of whether a receipt of shares amounted to a receipt of income: "The taxpayer had to prove that what he

received was not income, and the Board determined that he had failed in his proof. But that determination involved a consideration of what constitutes income and that is a question of law."

Thus in Hayes Case there was a question of construction

of a technical word and therefore a question of law.

Counsel for the taxpayer also relied upon Farmer v. Cottons Trustees [1915] A.C. 922, especially the judgment of Lord parker, from which Fullagar J. quoted in Hayes Case. It becomes obvious on close reading that when Lord Parker says (at p.932):

' question is whether the facts are such as to bring

of some statutory enactment, the question is one of law only.",

the operative words are "provisions properly construed".

The ussue clearly raised in Farmer v. Cottons Trustees

was whether the premises were "divided into and let in different tenements" within the meaning of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1878. Lord Parker (at p.932) said the question could only be determined by "putting a construction on the subsection in question", and thus a question of law was involved.

Similarly, in the case of xXCO Pty. Ltd. v. Federal

Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 124 C.L.R. 343 per Gibbs J. at p.348, the decision of the Board involved questions as to what constituted income and as to the construction of s.26(a) of the Act which were questions of law.

In Fisher v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the

Commonwealth (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 328, another case involving s.26(a), Owen J. considered the question whether land was bought for the purpose of resale at a profit to be a plain question of fact. No party had introduced a_ specific

question of construction upon which the case had turned and

the phrase was given its ordinary meaning so that no question of law was involved.

i In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South

Ltd. (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150, the majority of the High Court considered that in relation to taxation deductions claimed on calls on shares in a mining company carrying on "mining operations", the term "mining operations" was not a term of art, not technical but popular and its meaning was therefore a question of fact. Rich J. differed on this point, considering (at p.154) that "the proper legal effect of a proved fact is essentially a question of law". The application of the section "involves an appreciation of its meaning and some conclusion as to the extent of its operation". He considered that the statute, in the words of

Lord Parker in Farmer v. Cottons Trustees (supra), had to be

However, in the later case of Commissioner of Taxation

v. Miller (1946) 73 C.L.R. 93, Rich J. at p.101 indicated that a stricter line should be taken as to the involvement of questions of law for the purpose of appeals. In that case he considered that whether a person is a "resident" for the purposes of the relevant section of the taxing statute was a question of degree and therefore of fact. He was also of the opinion on the basis of what the legislature obviously intended, that for the future in cases where appeals lie on

questions of law only, it would be wise to insist that the

question of law suggested to be involved should be distinctly

taken before the Board and the ruling of the Board obtained on it. This certainly would be a wise course to follow. However, it is not one that can be rigidly insisted upon as the Act stands. Though a point of law is not distinctly taken it may still appear from the reasons of the Board that it was involved in their decision. In such a case if an appellant wishes to contest the correctness of the point of 'law involved in the decision he cannot, in view of the terms fs $.196, be shut out from appealing. ! A question of law is involved in a decision where there was no evidence upon which the Board could have reached its decision, the implication being that the Board must have misdirected itself as to the correct legal interpretation of the statute or made a perverse finding. A submission of "no evidence", however, involves the difficulty that unless some restrictions are applied, an appeal is open to any aggrieved appellant who chooses to make such a submission. Rich J. considered that it was manifestly the intention of the legislature that this be not so. He considered (at p.101) that "a question of law should be really and not merely colourably involved".

Without attempting an exhaustive summary, it may be said that a "question of law" will be involved in a decision in the following circumstances:

Ze If it is obvious from the decision or transcript of the case that the Board in arriving at its decision has misunderstood the law in some relevant particular;

3. Technical words had necessarily to _ be construed before the statute could be applied;

4. Where a particular set of facts had of necessity to be within or without the statute;

5. Where, in a submission of "no evidence" there is a real possibility of success.

Turning to the present case, it is my opinion that the first submission of Counsel for the taxpayer must fail. Counsel did not submit that there was "no evidence"; it was not a case where on the facts deduced from the evidence there could be no other conclusion than that the taxpayer had or had not the relevant purpose; and, "acquired by him for the purpose of profit making by sale" was not submitted by the parties or considered by the Board to have any other than its ordinary meaning.

The second submission was that the Board had been wrong in law when it found Dante Lombardo's purpose to be the same as that of his brother Vince. Counsel for the taxpayer submitted that the Board found that Vince had the intention to purchase the land for resale at a profit but that it had nowhere specifically said that the taxpayer had this purpose.

Rather, he submitted, the Board could only find that the

taxpayer's intention was to adopt the unexpressed purpose of

Vince, whatever that may have been. In other words, his intention was simply to go along with Vince without knowing the actual' plan. This, it was contended, was not a purpose relevant under the Act.

However, the Board specifically found on the facts "that on the balance of probabilities" the taxpayer "adopted as his purpose of acquisition the purpose or purposes which was or were formed by Vuince". The Board rejected evidence of the

eoxpayer's independent purpose, However, the Board were careful to stress in their reasons that they did not impute Vince's intention to the taxpayer nor did they approach the situation as one of principal and agent; rather it seems they found as a fact that some time prior to the acquisition of the land, the taxpayer adopted Vince's purpose of purchase which was profit making by sale.

Counsel referred finally to the question of onus of proof and whether the taxpayer had in fact received the Jand as a gift, both of which had been raised before the Board and dismissed by them.

For an appeal to this Court the question of law must have been "involved" in the decision of the Board. "Involvement" indicates that the question of law must have been an integral part of the decision of the Board, adopted or rejected as a step in arriving at the final conclusion, Even if a question was raised before the Board and they gave a ruling on it in the course of the proceedings before them,

it can only be "involved" in the final decision if it was

\ relevant in it (Krew v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation

' It is my opinion that the appellant's third submission also fails because neither of the above submissions of law

In my view the appeal should be dismissed with costs,

. precedng re oe fy! wes ~ 10 FA Ps aa his Ho.10u- ar se 7 - pa te : Aeea° 58 firs wee

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ' W. A. No. G3 of 1979 GENERAL DIVISION )

ON APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: DANTE LOMBARDO (Appellant) AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Coram: Bowen C.J., Franki and Toohey JJ. (7 OCTOBER 1979

This is an appeal by leave from a judgment of a single

I do not consider that it is necessary to set out the facts in detail but in broad outline sales of four properties py three taxpayers, members of the same Italian family, were treated by the Commissioner of Taxation as giving rise to taxable income under the first arm of s.26(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ("the Act") which provides that

"profit arising from the sale by the taxpayer of any property

-~-2- acquired by him for the purpose of profit making by sale" shall be taxable income. The three taxpayers involved were the appellant Dante Lombardo, Catino Gino Lombardo and Domenico Mariano Lombardo and the three tax years involved were the years ended 30 June 1968, 1969 and 1973. The three taxpayers objected to the inclusion of the profit arising from the sale of the relevant properties but the Commissioner rejected the objections and the taxpayers then sought reference of the matters to the Board of Review. The appeals of all three taxpayers in relation to each of the three years were heard together by the Board by consent and the Board dismissed the appeals

Dante Lombardo then appealed pursuant to s.196(1) of the Act in respect of the years ended 30 June 1968, 1969 and 1973 to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The learned Supreme Court judge held that he had no jurisdiction because the decision of the Board did not

The question before us was whether the decision of the Board involved a question of law within the

In the Supreme Court the aopellant objected to the tender of the transcript before the Board and therefore the question has to be decided by a perusal of the reasons

for the joint decision given by the members of the Board.

[} -3- The appellant had a brother Vince, who had been an estate agent, and the Board made certain relevant findings of

fact, to which I will refer later, in relation to the

It is necessary to identify any question of law which was involved in the decision of the Board. The main arguments of the appellant were that any determination whether the facts found by the Board came within the provisions of s.26(a) of the Act was a question of law and, secondly, as a subsidiary question, whether in determining if the taxpayer was assessable under s.26(a), the intention of his brother Vince, who was substantially involved in the property dealings out of which the assessments arose, could be taken into account in the way that the Board did. This subsidiary point was put more precisely by the appellant in the following form - "Is it possible for a taxpayer to have the requisite intention, the intention required by s.26(a), merely by specifically adopting the unexpressed intention of his agent; in other words, merely by deciding to do whatever his agent wanted him to do." The appellant also mentioned certain other arguments, but in my opinion, they were not of any substance: they were based upon the

onus of proof and upon a suggestion that the relevant

Various judgments have dealt with what is a question

of law in relation to s.196 of the Act but I think it is

convenicnt to commence by refering to what was said by

Rich J. in Commissioner of Taxation v. Miller (1946) 73 C.L.R.

they have recently been collected by the Supreme Court of New South

Gas Light Co. v. The Valuer General (7919) iG S.R. (N.S.W.) T26 at

p.137-138 and Dennis y: Watt (i942) 43 S.R. (N.S.W.) 32.7

on passage referred to in Australian Gas Light Co. v. The Valuer General is in the judgment of Jordan C.J. and

it has received approval in a number of other cases, for example, by Williams J. in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd. (1941) 65 C.L.R. 150 at p.160,

by Windeyer J. in Buckland v. The Commissione of Taxation (1960)34 A.L.J.R. 60 at p.61, by Jacobs J. in Re Neil;

ex p. Cinema International Corporation Pty. Ltd. (1976) 50 A.L.J.R. 499 at p.502 and it has been referred to by

several Supreme Court judges. In Australian Gas Light

Co. v. The Valuer General, supra, Jordan C.J. pointed out, inter alia, that the authorities appeared to establish that the question of what is the meaning of an ordinary English word or phrase as used in a statute is one of

fact and not of law but that the meaning of a technical legal term, as for example the words "charitable purposes", is a question of law and that the question whether a particular set of facts comes within the description of an ordinary English word is one of fact. If one bears this approach in mind it becomes clear that the key words in the passage quoted in the judgment of Fullagar J. in Hayes v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 96 C.L.R. 47 at p.51 are "properly construed". Counsel for the appellant

relied upon this judgment, but it 1s because a question

of construction arises that a question of law is involved.

In the appeal before us it has not been put, nor does it appear, that any question of the proper interpretation of s.26(a) of the Act was involved before the Board nor was it suggested that there was no evidence from which the Board covld reach the conclusion to which it came. It is necessary that a question of law should be really and not merely colourably involved. (Fisher v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 328). Our task has been made more difficult by the fact that the appellant chose to exclude the transcript before the Board in the proceedings before the learned trial judge. It also seems relevant to bear in mind thet under s.i190 of the Act the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive lies upon the taxpayer. In addition the appellant must satisfy the Board, on the balance of

probabilities, that the decision of the Court involves a

I am satisfied that the first submission of the appellant should be rejected. I am satisfied that a question of law is not involved merely because it is necessary to decide whether the facts found by the Board come within the provisions of s.26(a) where there is no question of the proper interpretation of any words in that section involved. In the proceedings before the Board,and indeed before us, it has not been argued that the meaning of any teohnical

legal term in the first arm of s.26(a) was in issue.

It is next necessary to consider what the appellant called its subsidiary argumenl. This has given me considerable concern but I have reached the conclusion, not without some hesitation, that the decision of the Board

(a) That Vince's intentions when he brought about the purchases of the relevant properties "were concerned with the clear purpose of profit making by their sale".

(b) That neither the appellant nor his two brothers who were involved in the decision of the Board "were devoid of any relevant purposes" when the

(c) The purpose of the appellant was the purpose formed by Vince and adopted by the appellant.

(da) That in deciding that the appellant adopted Vince's purposes the Board had not sought to "impute"™ Vince's intentions to the appellant nor had they treated the case as one of imputing the

Because of these findings I feel compelled to conclude that the Board made a finding of fact that the appellant had the purpose of profit making by sale ak the time of the

It may be that a question of law would have been involved if the finding of the Board had been based on a determination that the taxpayer "specifically adopted the unexpressed intention of his agent", as 1t was put by the appellant in his argument, but there is nothing in the material before us which I consider sufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that the intention of the agent, in this case, Vince, was unexpressed or that the appellant simply took the view at the relevant time that he would do whatever Vince wanted with the property. As I have said the onus lies upon the! appellant to establish on the balance of probabilities

that the decision of the Board involves a question of law

I would dismiss the appeal and order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of this appeal.

' JT cervity that this end the Aloe . preceding rages ace @ true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Henour

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W.A. No. G3 of 1979

ON APPEAL from the SUPREIE COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION CF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Section 196(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 provides for an appeal to a Supreme Court "from any decision of the Board that involves a question of law".

The taxpayer, by leave, appealed to this Court against a decision of the Supreme Court of Western

Australia (Wickham J.) that, on an appeal to the Supreme

Court from a decision of a Board of Review confirming

the assessment of income tax raised against the taxpayer, ; ;

the appeal was not competent, the decision of the Board

A brief reference to the facts is necessary to provide the context in which the question of jurisdiction arose. The taxpayer, together with his brother and father, was assessed to tax in respect of profit arising from the sale of land in the years ended 30 June 1968, 1969 and 1973. All objected to the assessments and all objections were disallowed. The three taxpayers asked the Commissioner to refer his decisions to a Board of Review and that was done. For reasons given, the Board upheld the decisions of the Commissioner and confirmed the assessments.

By consent, all references before the Board were heard jointly. Before the Supreme Court the taxpayer asked that his appeal be heard separately. That was done; the appeals of the other members of the family are still pending.

In the opinion of the Board the land, the sale of which produced the profit the subject of the

When the matter came before the Supreme Court, the questions of law said to be involved in the decision of the Board were expressed in the notice of appeal as follows:

"1. The proper construction of Section 26(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

2. Whether the Appellant acquired his interest in the properties referred to in the decision of the Board of Review as "Helm Street" and "Clay Lands" for the purpose of profit making by sale". Before this Court the question of law was expressed more broadly. - "3, The learned Judge was wrong in Law ' in that he should have held that a decision of the Board involving section 26(a) of the Act is a decision involving a question of law." The meaning and operation of s.196(1) of the Act have been considered in a number of cases, especially when &n. appeal from a Board lay to the High Court. None precisely answers the problem raised in the present case but it is possible to extract from them some principles that are helpful in arriving at an answer. The jurisdiction of a Supreme Court arises

when and only when a decision of a Board involves a

question of law. A proposition that there was no evidence

by which a Board could have reached its decision or made a material finding would, no doubt, raise a question of law. It may be said that, by implication, the decision itself must then have involved such a question. When such a proposition is urged to support jurisdiction, procedural questions may arise. If an appellant need do no more than assert that there was no evidence to support a Board's conclusion, it would seem that any party dissatisfied with a decision of a Board may appeal to the Supreme Court. Perhaps it ras with a concern for such a result that in some

cases the courts have spoken of the need that a question

"should be really, and not merely colourably, involved" (Fisher v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1960-67) 40 A.L.J.R. 328 per Owen J.).

See also Buckland v. Commissioner of Taxation (1960-61) 34 A.L.J.R. 60 per Windeyer J. at p.62.

It would be difficult to test even the existence of such a question without resort to the evidence heard by the Board. In some cases (the present appeal is such a one), the Supreme Court has no access to that material. It may be that where such a question is

asserted, the Court should have regard to the transcript

of that evidence for the purpose only of deciding whether the decision of the Board truly involves that question of lav. This was done by Owen J. in Fisher v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation supra.

However, the present appeal does not take us into that area of inquiry. Neither before Wickham J. nor before this Court did the appellant assert that the decision of the Board or any part of it had no evidence to support it.

Counsel referred to a number of English decisions as a guide to the meaning of 5.196(1) of the Act. While in some of those decisions there are

statements of principle that are helpful, it must be

remembered that under s.149 of the Income Tax Act of

Court from a determination by the general commissioners or by the special commissioners is conferred upon an appellant who is "dissatisfied with the determination, as being erroneous in point of law". Thus locus standi exists when an appellant asserts dissatisfaction with a determination on the ground that it is erroneous

in point of law. That being asserted, the High Court has jurisdiction but the decision appealed from will

stand unless the Court decides that it is wrong in law.

require a different approach to that taken under the

Once a decision of the Board involves a question of law, the whole decision of the Board and not merely that question is open to review. Ruhamah

What does it mean to say that a decision of a Board involves a question of law? When the question is itself expressly stated, there will be no difficulty in saying that the question was involved in the Board's decision. But the fact that a question is not expressly referred to does not mean that it is not so involved. The Concise Oxford Dictionary*s definition of "involve" includes "imply" and "entail". If a perusal of a Board's decision shows that some step, although not expressly referred to, must have been taken by the Board in arriving at its conclusion, that matter was involved in the decision. And if the matter, on examination, is shown to be a question of law, then a question of law will have been involved.

It may be that during the course of a hearing a Board determines some question of law, for instance

the admissibility of evidence, but that determination

neither expressly nor implicdly plays any part in the actual decision of the Board. An argument as to the correctness of that ruling would not, I think, be involved in the Board's decision.

The application of these principles is bound to produce some difficulty from time to time, not least in the present appeal.

The question of law posed to this Court proved, in discussion with the appellant's counsel, to be as follows. Once facts are found by or are agreed before a Board, the question whether those facts fall within or without s.26(a) of the Act is a question of law.

The appellant refined that proposition somewhat by saying that at least, when a Board decides that s.26(a) applies to the facts as found or agreed, that conclusion will always involve a question of law.

The appellant did not say that such a question only arises when it is contended that there was no evidence to justify the Board's decision. It arises, said the appellant, in the broad form in which I have expressed it. In that broad form, the proposition cannot be sustained. In my view, an appellant must identify in the decision of a Board a particular question ox law involved, expressly or by implication. This the

appellant relied primarily upon the judgment of F . Fullagar J. in Hayes v. Federal Commissioner of

Taxation (1956) 96 C.L.R. 47 at p.51. It is a lengthy passage but, because of the importance attached to it by the appellant, it is as well to set it out in full.

"There are decisions in taxation cases, including decisions of the House of Lords, which, to my mind, create serious difficulty in relation to the distinction, which often has to be drawn, becween "questions of fact" and "questions of law". For present purposes, however, I think it sufficient to refer to what was said by Lord Parker of Waddington in Farmer v. Cotton's Trustees in a passage quoted by Latham C.J. in Commissioner of Taxation v. Miller. His Lordship said:-

"The views from time to time expressed in this House have been far from unanimous,

but in my humble judgment where all the material facts are fully found, and the only question is whether the facts are such as to bring the case within the provisions properly construed of some statutory enactment, the question is one of law only". With the greatest respect, this seems to me to be

the only reasonable view. The distinction between the two classes of question is, I think, greatly simplified, if we bear in mind the distinction, so clearly drawn by Wigmore, between the factum probandum (the ultimate fact in issue) and facta probantia (the facts adduced to prove or disprove that ultimate fact). The "facts" referred to by Lord Parker in the passage quoted are the facta probantia. Where the factum probandum involves a term used in a statute, the question whether the accepted facta probantia establish that factum probandum will generally - so far as I can see, always - be a question of law."

Fullagar J. nor that of Lord Parker is authority for

concerned a large building let to a number of tenants, : the issue being whether the premises were "divided into and let in different tenements" within the Customs and / Inland Revenue Act 1878. In the passage quoted by Fullagae J. from the judgment of Lord Parker, the words "properly construed", qualifying "the provisions ... of some statutory enactment", are, I think, basic. That becomes clearer when the succeeding sentences in the judgment are read. In his Lordship's view, the question whether the building was divided and let in different tenements - 7: "can only be determined by putting a construction on the sub-section in question,

supra the question was whether a receipt of shares amounted to a receipt of income. The extract from the judement of Fullagar J. quoted earlier in these

"Tt was said that the decision of the board here was a decision on a question of fact, there being no disagreement between the parties as to the law applicable to the case. I camnot accept this view. It is true that the decision was a decision on a question of fact in the sense that there was an ultimate factum probandum: the taxpayer had to prove that what he received was not income, and the board determined that he had failed in his proof. But that determination involved a consideration of what constitutes income, and that is a question of law. The board had also to consider the construction of s.26(e) of the Act. The decision turned on the view taken by the board on those matters, and that decision is right or wrong according as the board's view on those matters was right or wrong". -

No doubt, in many cases involving the application of s.26(a) of the Act a question of law will be involved. There may be a dispute as to the proper construction

of the section; it may be that the meaning of particular words used in the Act is in issue. But there must be first an identification of the question itself.

of Taxation supra or in Farmer v. Cottons Trustees supra

that supports a proposition in the broad terms expressed

to in the judgment of Fullagar J., there was a question

whethex or not a person was "resident" within the meaning

of a section of the Income Tax Assessment Act. In the

following words which have application to the present case. t

"The Board have given their reasons and no misapprehension of the meaning of the a provision in question is disclosed and no misconception appears as to what amounts i to "residence" as a general proposition. i No proposition of law appears to have been in contest and no contestable proposition of law appears to have been assumed. It all seems to me to come

/ In opening, the appellant's counsel spoke of 7 what he described as "a subsidiary question of law". It was formulated as a question:

"whether or not in determining whether the taxpayer was assessable under section 26(a), the intention of his brother who was substantially involved in the property dealings, out of which the 'assessments arose, could be taken into account in the way that the board

It is arguable whether that question truly | arose from the notice of appeal to this Court, but it was argued before the Supreme Court and the appellant was pecmitted to argue it before us. The brother

referred to was Vince, che eldest of the family and y

the first to come from Italy to Australia. He, along with the three taxpayers, gave evidence before the Boerd who were of the opinion that he was "the mastermind of the family's activities in relation to the purchase of land". The Board concluded that the three taxpayers were completely in the hands of Vince who managed their affairs. There was a specific finding -

of acquisition the purpose or purposes which was or were formed by Vince".

Furthermore, the Board expressly rejected any evidence that the taxpayers had purposes independent of Vince's. The Board was at some pains to emphasise that their finding was - "as a matter of belief based on the evidence, that the taxpayers adopted Vince's purposes. We have not sought to "impute" his intentions to them... Nor have we approached the problem as one in which the intention of an agent is imputed to a principal". Wickham J. was of the view that the finding of the Board that the taxpayers adopted Vince's purposes

vas "a conclusion of fact and not a conclusion of law

When asked by this Court what question of law was involved in that part of the Board's decision, counsel for the appellant answered:

agent wanted him to do". While I have some difficulty with the way in which the Board formulated its approach to this aspect, I am not persuaded that a question of law is involved in its decision. The taxpayer did not assert that there was no evidence to justify the specific finding of the Board that he adopted as his purpose of acquisition the purpose which was formed by Vince. That finding must be taken in context. And the context includes findings by the Board that the taxpayer did have a purpose when he purchased and that it was not one independent of that formed by Vince which was a clear purpose of profit-making by sale.

The Board's findings were of a purpose formed by Vince and adopted by the taxpayer before acquisition. That appears from the reasons taken as a whole and from

the argument before this Court. Counsel for the taxpayer

did not present the case on any other basis, counsel

for the Commissioner took that view and in reply counsel for the taxpayer did not dissent from it. A finding of adoption of purpose after acquisition may well have involved a question of law but that is not the situation here.

The Board's findings were findings of fact and the formulation by counsel of the question as one of law does not alter the true character of those findings or of their implications. I am in agreement with the view of Wickham J. that the Board's concl.sion as to the adoption of purpose was one of fact, involving no question of law.

Counsel referred to two other matters. One concerned the onus of proof, raised at the commencement of proceedings before the Board and resolved against the taxpayer by the Board. The other related to 4 submission that having regard to the way in which the family managed their finances, land acquired by the taxpayer was by way of gift.

In my view, neither question can be said to have been involved in the decision of the Board and neither question was capable of being properly raised

within the grounds of appeal before this Court nor, I