Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker (No 2) [2020] FCA 1048 File number: QUD 106 of 2019
Judge: RANGIAH J
Date of judgment: 27 July 2020
Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT –– where respondents made undertaking not to provide tax agent services within meaning of s 90–5 of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) – allegation of breach of undertaking – second respondent admitted contempt – whether first respondent received reward for providing tax agent services – where first respondent was shareholder of company which charged for tax agent services –– breach of undertaking established
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 24 Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) ss 50–5 and 90–5
Cases cited: Anderson v Hassett [2007] NSWSC 1310 Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98 Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483 Lade & Co Pty Ltd v Black [2006] 2 Qd R 531 Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198 Metcash Trading Ltd v Bunn (No 5) (2009) FCA 16 Microsoft Corporation v Marks (No 1) (1996) 69 FCR 117 Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker [2020] FCA 1047 Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Date of hearing: 10–13 February 2020
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
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