Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad (No 3) [2012] FCA 594

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad (No 3) [2012] FCA 594 Citation: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad (No 3) [2012] FCA 594

Parties: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v HUA WANG BANK BERHAD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v CHEMICAL TRUSTEE LIMITED and DERRIN BROTHERS PROPERTIES LIMITED and BYWATER INVESTMENTS LIMITED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v SOUTHGATE INVESTMENT FUNDS LIMITED

File numbers: VID 672 of 2010 VID 887 of 2010 VID 888 of 2010

Judge: PERRAM J

Date of judgment: 8 June 2012

Catchwords: TAXATION – Income tax – whether the taxpayers, who are full self-assessment taxpayers and who have not lodged tax returns for certain financial years prior to 2010, were liable in November 2010 to pay the general interest charge PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to vary summary judgment given pursuant to s 31A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether judgment was interlocutory and therefore liable to be varied or set aside – whether Court should exercise power to set aside or vary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to stay execution of judgments obtained by the Commissioner of Taxation – principles to be applied – whether the merits of a pending appeal may be considered – whether freezing orders over assets sufficient – whether threshold for stay of execution of interlocutory judgments is lower than for final judgments – whether delay in seeking enforcement is sufficient to grant stay – whether delay is present – whether taxpayers might be prejudiced if shares are sold by the Commissioner and subsequently appreciate in value – whether execution is contrary to the Commissioner's policies – whether third parties might be prejudiced PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for concurrent hearing of enforcement proceedings by Commissioner of Taxation and appeals by taxpayers under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) – whether presence of identical issues justified order for concurrent hearing – whether identical issues present