© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2007] FCA 1776
Federal Court of Australia
2007-10-26
Besanko J
Original judgment source is linked above.
AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On the question of costs I refer to my reasons in these matters [2007] FCA 1195. At [13] I identified five issues. 2 As to the first issue, namely whether the deductions fell within s 51(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), I refer to [192] of my reasons. That issue was not an issue which occupied any time at the hearing. It was suggested by counsel for the respective applicants that it was a live issue before the hearing. I have perused the relevant court files and I am not satisfied that the Commissioner of Taxation's decision not to formally concede that the deductions fell within s 51(1) added materially to the costs of preparation and hearing. 3 As to the second issue, the respective applicants were unsuccessful. 4 As to the third issue, the respective applicants were unsuccessful. 5 As to the fourth issue, that issue was a relatively minor issue when compared with the third issue and to a lesser extent the second issue. The Commissioner of Taxation accepted that there were some actual cash outlays but there was disagreement as to the amounts. To the extent that the respective applicants proved their actual cash outlays, that was done in the course of evidence given on other issues. 6 As to the fifth issue, that is not a matter which, in the circumstances, should influence the decision on the question of costs. 7 I have a broad discretion on the question of costs. The Commissioner of Taxation has been substantially successful. Some small allowance should be made for the fact that the applicants have been successful to the extent of actual cash outlays, which in some cases are quite substantial. I would allow the Commissioner of Taxation 90 per cent of his costs in relation to each appeal. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.
Associate: Dated: 16 November 2007 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Romano
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Tolich
Commissioner of Taxation