Penrose v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1931] HCA 25

MoT FOUL. SPCR

&/ Cian

45 O.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

PENROSE . 3 E ei e 4 i . APPELLANT;

AND

THE FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION ResponpEnv.

Income Tax (Oth,)—Assessment—Income omitted from return—* Additional tax" — How caleculated—Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-1928 (No. 37 of 1922— No. 46 of 1928), sec. 67.

In sec. 67 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-1928 it is provided that "any person who . . . (b) fails to include any assessable income in any retum . . . shall be liable to pay by way of additional tax the amount of one pound or double the amount of the difference between the tax properly payable and the tax assessed upon the basis of the return lodged, whichever is the greater."

Held, that: sec. 67 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-1928 contemplates and predicates a tax assessed upon a taxpayer's return which is less than the amount properly payable, and does not authorize the calculation of the additional tax on the difference between the return as lodged and adjusted by the Commis. sioner and the retum of income made by the taxpayer.

Appnat from the Federal Commissioner of Taxation.

In the return furnished by William Gould Penrose of income derived by him from all sources during the financial year ended 30th June 1928, he showed a gross income from personal exertion of £453, which by relevant deductions he claimed to reduce to £204, and a gross income from property of £1,204, reduced to £493 by relevant deductions; and from the total of these two net amounts he further deducted £428 (being insurance premiums paid £17, allowance for children £100, medical expenses £54, and dividends from companies £257), leaving £269 as the net amount of his income during the period under review. The assessment notice received

Ree au

H. C. or A,

1931. i)

Sypyey, April 28; July 30,