Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
CUB Australia Holding Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] FCA 43 File number: VID 213 of 2020
Judgment of: MOSHINSKY J
Date of judgment: 2 February 2021
Catchwords: TAXATION – notice to give information – where Commissioner sought particulars of documents that were the subject of legal professional privilege claims – where the particulars sought comprised the titles of the documents, and the names of the authors and recipients of the documents – whether the notice was invalid on the ground that it was not authorised by the enactment, or that it was issued for an improper purpose, or that the Commissioner had taken into account an irrelevant consideration – where the taxpayer alleged that the Commissioner's purpose in issuing the notice was to determine the validity of the taxpayer's legal professional privilege claims – whether the taxpayer's contention as to purpose was established
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 13 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 264, 264A Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 995-1 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Sch 1, s 353-10
Cases cited: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Konza (2012) 206 FCR 450 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Konza (2012) 87 ATR 779 Binetter v Commissioner of Taxation (2012) 206 FCR 37 Brownells Ltd v Ironmongers' Wages Board (1950) 81 CLR 108 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 40 ATR 435 Emmett v McCormack [2016] FCAFC 65 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 499 LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) (2015) 100 ATR 605 May v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 92 FCR 152 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Arslan (1984) 4 FCR 73 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Taveli (1990) 23 FCR 162 Narain v Parnell (1986) 9 FCR 479 Parramatta City Council v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hurstville City Council (2000) 105 FCR 322 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hurstville City Council (2002) 118 FCR 198
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