JUDGMENT No. 422221.8&.... IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G207 of 1988 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: LINDSAY THOMAS STATHAM and SIDNEY DOUGLAS BICKERTON as trustees for the Estate of CHARLES NEVILLE ADERMANN deceased Appellants THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 2 AUGUST 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the appeal record contain the single-page appendix A to the reasons for decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; 2. the appeal record not include the version of the reasons issued for publication and marked "A" in the papers before the Court; 3. the Commissioner of Taxation pay the costs of Lindsay Thomas Statham and Sidney Douglas Bickerton of and incidental to today's hearing, to be taxed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G207 of 1988 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: LINDSAY THOMAS STATHAM and SIDNEY DOUGLAS BICKERTON as trustees for the Estate of CHARLES NEVILLE ADERMANN deceased Appellants AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent PINCUS J. 2 AUGUST 1988 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application by the respondent in a taxation appeal which is to be heard by the Full Court tomorrow. The application is made under 0.53 r.15, and it seeks directions as to the proper content of the appeal record. Mr Ulrick of counsel for the applicant before me, being the respondent in the appeal, says that the record should contain two versions of the reasons for decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the body from which the appeal is brought. He also complains that the record is, in any event, deficient as not containing a complete set of reasons, in that an appendix is missing. As to the latter point, Mr Ulrick appears clearly to be correct, and I direct that the appeal record should contain the single-page appendix A, which has been omitted by mistake. That can be done by producing copies at the hearing for attachment to the judges' copies of the record. The more important point raised by Mr Ulrick is that, according to his submission, the record should contain an additional set of reasons, being that issued by the Tribunal for publication in sets of taxation reports. When the question first arose which is now raised before me, an inquiry was made of the Tribunal by the Registrar of this Court, and the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal advised that the reasons for decision are those, "which were forwarded to you under cover of our letter dated 29th June 1988". They are the ones currently in the record, with the difference I have already alluded to: that by mistake a page has been omitted. Counsel argues that the Tribunal is wrong, and that there are, in fact, two sets of reasons, both of which should be considered on the appeal. Mr Carter, appearing for the appellants in the appeal, who are respondents before me, has pointed out that the reasons issued for publication are briefer, because they present a simpler version of the facts. An example is 1n the very opening remarks, namely that: "The material facts in this application can be simply stated: In 1970 the applicant acquired the family farm in Gympie - a property of some 240 acres or so from his father." oe So says the published set of reasons. In the fuller version, however, 1t is different: "The material facts in this application can be simply stated: In 1970 the late Charles Neville Adermann ("Neville") acquired the family farm in Kingaroy -— a property of some 240 acres or so from his father, Charles F. Adermann." The version of the reasons currently in the record states, presumably correctly, that the acquirer of the farm was a person (now deceased) other than the applicants before the Tribunal. More generally, the version for publication is written as if the applicant below were a single person; reference to what I shall call, for short, the longer version of the reasons shows that that 1s not so. Ordinarily, one would defer without question to the Tribunal's identification of the reasons for decision. Here, it is suggested in effect that the Tribunal's identification of the reasons is wrong, because the version issued for publication contains statements which may be of assistance to Mr Ulrick's side and require to be considered by the Full Court. In my opinion, that 1s not so. That is, I do not agree that the record should contain the published version, rather than, or in addition to, the longer version in the record. The differences, it seems to me, are due to an attempt to remove from the longer reasons matters which might identify the taxpayers in question, in addition to which there seems to have been an attempt, for reasons which I do not quite follow, to simplify the published account of the facts. I have already directed that the record include the missing annexure page; to clarify the matter, I will issue a further direction, namely, that the record not include the version of the reasons issued for publication and marked "A" in the papers before me. The result is that in my view the record is correct with the one exception I have mentioned, that it should contain the annexure sheet. It will be ordered that the Commissioner of Taxation pay the costs of Lindsay Thomas Statham and Sidney Douglas Bickerton of and incidental to today's hearing. + certify that this and the 4 preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of His Honour to Sites Mr Justice Pincus A, v Associate Dated & Auquer 1983