Case: Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42 ; (1994) 181 CLR 251
Outcome: referred to
Finance Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 267 (21 March 2006) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Court of Australia You are here: &nbsp; AustLII &gt;&gt; Databases &gt;&gt; Federal Court of Australia &gt;&gt; 2006 &gt;&gt; [2006] FCA 267 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ Help ] IEL Finance Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 267 (21 March 2006) Last Updated: 22 March 2006 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA IEL Finance Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 267 INCOME TAX large corporate group inter-group transactions undertaken over six consecutive fiscal years transactions involving inter-group interest bearing borrowings principally by one group member and transfers of tax losses arising out of those borrowings to other group members prior primary and appellate claims by proceedings in Federal Court made by borrowing member against the Commissioner for interest deductibility in respect of one fiscal year decision at first instance and on appeal in relation to that fiscal year adverse to that single group member findings made in context of those proceedings as to assessability to tax of that group member in respect of some transactions for differing fiscal years after conclusion of single fiscal year further proceedings commenced by the same corporate group member together with other corporate group members in respect of transactions involving borrowings and transfers of tax losses in respect of antecedent as well as subsequent fiscal years to that resolved by Federal Court in favour of Commissioner whether issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and/or abuse of process should operate in favour of Commissioner in respect of deductions for losses of antecedent and subsequent fiscal years meaning of privies authority in Australian Courts of earlier decisions of Privy Council and House of Lords summary judgment application of Commissioner granted Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) ss 51(1), 79E and 80G and Part VII Tax Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Part IVC Federal Court Rules O 20 r 2 subrule 2(1)(b) and (c) and Order 52B Spassked Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No. 5) (2003) 197 ALR 553 cited and applied Spassked Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 282 ; (2003) 136 FCR 441 cited and applied General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 applied Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1 ; (1948-1949) 78 CLR 62 applied Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22 ; (1950) 81 CLR 446 referred to Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Limited (1993) 43 FCR 510 referred to Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23 ; (1939) 62 CLR 464 applied Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42 ; (1994) 181 CLR 251 referred to Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Effem Foods Pty Limited (1992) 36 FCR 406 referred to Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699 applied Walton v Gardiner [1992] HCA 12 ; (1993) 177 CLR 378 applied Sea Culture International Pty Ltd v Scoles [1991] 32 FCR 275 referred to Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1921] HCA 56 ; (1921) 29 CLR 537 discussed Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1925] HCA 51 ; [1926] AC 155; (1925) 37 CLR 290 discussed Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Ha 100 discussed Murphy v Abi-Saab (1995) 37 NSWLR 280 applied Johnson v Gore Wood &amp; Co [2000] UKHL 65 ; [2002] 2 AC 1 cited Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited [1981] HCA 45 ; (1981) 147 CLR 589 applied Taylor v Ansett Transport Industries Limited [1987] 18 FCR 342 cited Mohamed Falil Abdul Caffoor, The Trustees of the Abdul Gaffoor Trust v Commissioner of Income Tax Colombo [1961] AC 584 discussed and distinguished Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited v The Municipal Council of Broken Hill [1925] HCA 44 ; (1925) 37 CLR 284 discussed and distinguished The Council of the Municipality of Broken Hill v The Broken Hill Proprietary Company [1922] HCA 15 ; (1922) 30 CLR 400 discussed and distinguished Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1988] HCA 21 ; (1987-1988) 164 CLR 502 discussed Chamberlain v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 21 FCR 21 cited Federal Commissioner v Wade [1951] HCA 66 ; (1951) 84 CLR 105 referred to Society of Medical Officer of Health v Hope [1960] AC 551 discussed and distinguished Federal Commissioner of Taxation v A.N.Z. Savings Bank Ltd [1994] HCA 58 ; (1994) 181 CLR 466 referred to Falk v Haugh [1935] HCA 35 ; (1935) 53 CLR 163 cited and discussed Viro v The Queen [1978] HCA 9 ; (1978) 141 CLR 88 referred to Orica Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 182 ALR 77 not followed Queensland Trustees Limited v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1956] HCA 75 ; (1956) 96 CLR 131 applied Commissioner of Taxation v Dulux Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1344 ; (2001) 113 FCR 436 referred to re Sharpe (1944) QSR 26 referred to Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73 ; (1986) 162 CLR 376 cited and discussed Skelton v Collins [1966] HCA 14 ; (1966) 115 CLR 94 referred to Hawkins v Clayton (1986) 5 NSWLR 109 referred to Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cappid Pty Ltd [1970] HCA 41 ; (1970) 127 CLR 140 distinguished Saffron v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 30 FCR 578 discussed and distinguished Arthur JS Hall &amp; Co v Simons [2000] UKHL 38 ; [2002] 1 AC 615 discussed R v O'Halloran [2000] NSWCCA 528 ; (2000) 36 ACSR 315 discussed IEL FINANCE LIMITED, QUEENSLAND TRADING AND HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED AND SPASSKED PTY LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION NSD 539 OF 2004 NSD 543 OF 2004 NSD 540 OF 2004 NSD 94 OF 2005 CONTI J 21 MARCH 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 539 OF 2004 NSD 543 OF 2004 NSD 540 OF 2004 NSD 94 OF 2005 BETWEEN: IEL FINANCE LIMITED, QUEENSLAND TRADING &amp; HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED AND SPASSKED PTY LIMITED APPLICANTS AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION RESPONDENT JUDGE: CONTI J DATE OF ORDER: 21 MARCH 2006 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent Commissioner lodge with the Court and with the taxpayer applicants draft declarations and/or orders giving effect to the reasons for judgment within fourteen days, including orders as to costs. 29 Attention was further drawn by both parties to Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42 ; (1994) 181 CLR 251 at 261, where Brennan J observed that: 'Although merger provides a distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel, both doctrines bind the parties and their privies to accept a final judicial decision of a question between the parties as correct'. The juridical notion of 'privies', or more perhaps precisely, privity in interest, was examined in Effem at first instance by Gummow J ( Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Effem Foods Pty Limited (1992) 36 FCR 406). At 413-414, his Honour made the threshold observation that ' ... the doctrine of privity in interest... operates in the same way upon the doctrines of cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel... [t]he basic requirement of a privy in interest [being] that the privy must claim "under or through" the person to whom he is said to be a privy... [t[he necessary identity in interest may arise from a successive relationship in a temporal sense..., when finding the necessary privity, in a succussive or mutual relationship, the courts have looked to legal rather than economic indicia as the criterion of operation of the privity doctrine '. One example to which his Honour referred (at 414) was of holders of successive interests in the same fund, notwithstanding that they had become members of the fund subsequent to dismissal of proceedings brought by other beneficiaries. His Honour found that the applicant for relief in Effem ' ... was not claiming under or in virtue of any legal right of the other applicants in the present proceedings '. The taxpayer applicants' contended that there was an absence of satisfaction in the circumstances of this case of the requirement of privity of interest in relation to the respective claims of IEF and QTH on the one hand and that of Spassked on the other, implicitly notwithstanding that each was a wholly owned subsidiary of IEL, and moreover traced their ultimate corporate membership to the Adsteam Group. In any event, the taxpayer applicants contended in written submissions in reply as 'not disputed' that '[i]f Spassked and IEL are not estopped from pursuing appeals in other years that their privies cannot be estopped', but whether the converse of that proposition is true may be another matter, depending upon the scope of the doctrinal notions of privy and privity of interest. 43 In reaching that opinion, it was further stated that their Lordships were 'entirely in accord with the judgment of Higgins J ', who had earlier expressed the following principle in the High Court ( Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1921] HCA 56 ; (1921) 29 CLR 537 at 562), being a principle appearing within the scope of the dictum of Dixon J in Blair v Curran at 532 (which I have already extracted at some length): 'My view is that the point as to joint ownership was, by virtue of the formal objections, and from the nature of the judgment thereon, "actually litigated and determined" in the former proceedings; and that whether the judgment in its actual form was due to the Commissioner's consent or admission or to his neglect, he is bound by the finding of joint ownership which the judgment necessarily involves.' That passage was subsequently cited with approval by the High Court in Rogers v The Queen by Brennan J at 263, in the following context: 'But a court, in ascertaining whether a finding has been made on which an estoppel is raised, is entitled to look not only at the record... but also at any material that shows what issues were raised and decided.' And further at 268, his Honour added: 'If a formal record is unnecessary to raise a plea of res judicata in the strict sense, a fortiori a record is not needed to raise an issue estoppel on a finding not expressed in the ultimate decision in the trial.' At 283 in Rogers , McHugh J observed that issue estoppel relates to 'an ultimate issue in the litigation' , and further that '[n]o estoppel can arise in respect of evidentiary issues even when they are the building blocks in the proof of an ultimate issue' . The difficulty arising in the context of complex fiscal litigation such as the present is isolating what may be merely 'building blocks' . 110 In that latter regard, in the Full Court in the earlier concluded Spassked proceedings, Hill and Lander JJ recorded (additionally of course to what I have earlier extracted of similar relevance), that '... interest was incurred on a loan to acquire shares where, in all the years of income in question and for the foreseeable future, from the time [that Spassked] structure was established, steps would be taken to ensure that the shares acquired would not produce anything but a nominal amount of assessable income'. Those 'years of income in question' so addressed were of course the six fiscal years from and including 1988 to 1994. Furthermore, as their Honours' joint judgment recorded further, '... at no relevant time could it be said that Spassked incurred in the years of income interest on moneys used by it to acquire shares in the course of any activity carried on by it in the course of gaining or producing assessable income', but that '[r]ather, the occasion of each outgoing of interest was to be found in those shares deliberately being non-income producing'. Similar findings in relation to those themes may be identified from the generality of the observations of Gyles J, in the context of his Honour's reference to '... all the years of income in question '. Those findings could not be rightly characterised merely as ' building blocks ' leading to the ratio or ratios for decision in Spassked, being the description used by McHugh J in Rogers at 283 ( supra ). I should add that in any assessment of the circumstances here prevailing concerning the Commissioner's case for abuse of process, issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, the principal focus must be upon those circumstances affecting or relating to Spassked at least in the first instance, those relating to IEF and QTH being derived from Spassked and apparently incurred in relation to the fiscal years 1991, 1993 and 1996, and in any event incurred during the six year fiscal year period from 1988 to 1994 inclusive. 118 Further as to the operation in Australia of both issue and Anshun estoppels, the latter having been described by Gleeson CJ in Murphy at 286 as ' a wider form of estoppel' , the Commissioner contended that the critical findings of the earlier concluded Spassked proceedings I have extracted also related to or involved 'ultimate facts which form ingredients in the cause of action' ( Blair v Curran at 532), and which were so closely connected with the subject matter of the earlier concluded Spassked proceedings that it was to be expected that the same would be subsequently relied on by the Commissioner in relation to fiscal years additional to 1992 (see again the full context of the dicta I have earlier cited from Anshun and Henderson ). I further bear in mind that issue estoppel operates in relation not just to the prior litigating parties but also to their respective privies ( Rogers ), and hence persons or entities claiming under or through or by virtue of the legal rights of such parties ( Effem ). I think that it should be concluded that each of the taxpayer applicants qualify as privies of each other, and of their common wholly owning parent IEL, for the purposes of the operation of doctrines as to issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, being a qualification in any event not seemingly required to be fulfilled in the case of the wider and more comprehensive notion of abuse of process. Each of IEL and its wholly owned subsidiaries here involved, being of course each of the taxpayer applicants, was subjected to the evident decision-making corporate mind of IEL as parent company.