White Industries Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation

Federal Court of Australia|2003-06-20|Before: Emmett J

White Industries Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCA 915 WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION N124 OF 2003 GB & AB WHITE HOLDINGS PTY LTD V COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION N126 OF 2003 EMMETT J 20 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY

N124 OF 2003 BETWEEN: WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD

AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

N126 OF 2003 BETWEEN: GB & AB WHITE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the application be dismissed;
the applicant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

N124 OF 2003 BETWEEN: WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD

AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

N126 OF 2003 BETWEEN: GB & AB WHITE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 These two proceedings purport to be appeals under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) in respect of objection decisions. The respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation, has moved for dismissal of both proceedings on the basis that they are incompetent because they relate to purported notices of assessment that are not, in fact, notices of assessment within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). 2 That question was considered and resolved in proceeding N452 of 2003: see White Industries Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCA 599. For the reasons that I gave in that proceeding, I concluded that the documents that I there described as the December Notices did not have the effect of replacing the notices of amended assessment that I described as the November Notices. 3 It follows from the conclusion that I reached in proceeding N452 of 2003, that I am of the opinion that the purported appeals in proceedings N124 of 2003 and N126 of 2003 are incompetent and should be dismissed. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Solicitor for the Applicants: PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (14 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)