Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Industry Research and Development Board v Phai See Investments Pty Limited [2001] FCA 532
INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT – review of decisions of Administrative Appeals Tribunal as to whether Tea Tree Oil investment schemes should be "registered" under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (Cth) – whether Phai See Investments Pty Ltd and Mainstar One Holdings Pty Ltd carried on "research and development activities" under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) – whether research and development activities were carried on "by or on behalf of" the companies – no error of law discernible in decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal relating to Phai See Investments Pty Ltd – failure by Administrative Appeals Tribunal to give adequate reasons for its decision in relation to Mainstar One Holdings Pty Ltd
WORDS AND PHRASES – "research and development activities", "by or on behalf of" Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (Cth) ss 39J, 39T, 39K, 39A, 39P Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43(2), 43(2B), 44 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 73B R v Toohey; Ex parte The Attorney-General for the Northern Territory of Australia (1980) 145 CLR 374 referred to R v Portus; Ex Parte Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1949) 79 CLR 428 referred to Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority v Willoughby Waste Disposals Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 7 referred to Citizens Airport Environment Association Inc v Maritime Services Board (1993) 30 NSWLR 207 referred to Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry (1998) 193 CLR 605 referred to Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Service (1999) 99 ATC 4886 cited Re Charles IFE Pty Ltd & Industry Research & Development Board (1995) 39 ALD 635 considered Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323 cited Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1983) 35 ALR 186 cited Comcare v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647 cited Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Singh (2000) FCR 469 cited Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [1999] FCA655 considered Chapman v Australian Postal Corporation [2000] FCA 1700 cited Comcare v Forbutt [2000] FCA 837 cited INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD v PHAI SEE INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 849 741) N 553 OF 2000 MAINSTAR ONE HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED v INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (ACN 060 308 969) N 555 OF 2000 HELY J 10 MAY 2001 SYDNEY
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate