Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Brown v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] FCA 596 TAXATION – assessable income – where Taxpayer failed to declare value of home unit and other benefits as part of income – where Taxpayer claimed benefits constituted a gift – where Commissioner claimed benefits were referable to services provided by Taxpayer – meaning of "income" for the purposes of s 25(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 – meaning of "income from personal exertion" for the purposes of s 6 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 – distinction between "product of an income producing activity" and "mere gift" TAXATION – discretionary power of Commissioner – where Commissioner found "deliberate evasion" – whether Commissioner's discretion should be re-exercised – whether Commissioner misconstrued facts – whether Commissioner took irrelevant considerations into account – whether Commissioner's decision capricious or arbitrary EVIDENCE – where Taxation Office investigated Taxpayer's claims – where Taxpayer's accounting and legal representatives initiated meeting with members of the Taxation Office – whether meeting and associated communications inadmissible under Evidence Act s131(1)(a) – whether operation of s131(1)(a) excluded by s131(2)(b) or (g) – whether evidence relevant
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Part IVC Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) ss 6, 25(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s131 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Dixon 86 CLR 540 cited Hayes v the Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 96 CLR 47 followed Scott v FCT (1996) 117 CLR 514 cited Squatting Investment Co. Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1953) 86 CLR 570 cited Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 cited Dalgety Downs Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1952) 86 CLR 335 cited Duggan v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1972) 129 CLR 365 cited Denver Chemical Manufacturing Co. v Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1949) 79 CLR 296 cited Rush & Thompkins v GLC [1989] 1 AC 1280 cited Unilever PLC v Proctor & Gamble Co [1999] 1 WLR 1630 cited Pitts v Adney (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 886 cited
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