Case: R v O'Halloran [2000] NSWCCA 528 ; (2000) 36 ACSR 315
Outcome: discussed
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. 92 The taxpayer applicants drew further attention, in the present context of discussion, to the following opinions of Lord Hobhouse in Arthur S Hall &amp; Co v Simons [2000] UKHL 38 ; [2002] 1 AC 615 at 743 as to the operation of the principle of abuse of process: 'The "collateral attack" point is a species (or "sub-set ") of abuse of process. There is no general rule preventing a party inviting a court to arrive at a decision inconsistent with that arrived at in another case. The law of estoppel per rem judicatam (and issue estoppel ) define when a party is entitled to do this. Generally there must be an identification of the parties in the instant case with those in the previous case and there are exceptions. So far as questions of law are concerned, absent a decision specifically binding upon the relevant litigant, the doctrine of precedent governs when an earlier legal decision may be challenged in a later case. A party is not in general bound by a previous decision unless he has been a party or privy to it or has been expressly or implicitly covered by some order for the marshalling of litigation ( Ashmore v British Coal Corpn [1990] 2 QB 338 ). This overlaps with the concept of vexation where the same person is faced with successive actions making the same allegations which have already been fully investigated in a previous case in which the later claimant had an opportunity to take part. This reasoning does not apply to an action against a lawyer alleging that he has mishandled a previous case.' I have earlier made reference to dictum of Lord Hoffman appearing in Arthur S Hall, in the context of my earlier citation from Spalla of the public policy element which assists to define the scope of the doctrine of abuse of process, and I have of course already discussed the judicial notion of ' privy '. The taxpayer applicants contended that it could not be said that they had an ' opportunity to take part ' in what was described by them as '... a contest over the liability to tax in respect of other years and in respect of other taxpayers'. That contention was contextually related to the further proposition of the taxpayer applicants that '... the Commissioner's submission that the present taxpayers and Spassked are controlled by the same entity, is in the present circumstances, irrelevant to the question of abuse of process'. I have difficulty in understanding why that should be so. Control by the same corporate entity, for instance the control of a holding company over its wholly owned subsidiaries, may surely be a factor of potential relevance to the resolution of an issue as to abuse of process which focuses upon the conduct of the controlled entity and a relevantly related company, especially in circumstances of entire (ie wholly owned) shareholding control. As exemplified in passages I have earlier extracted from the judgments in Spassked at first instance and appeal, evidence was led as to the operations, activities and decision making of and in relation to IEL wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries comprising the taxpayer applicants in particular, in relation to periods of time both prior and subsequent to the 1992 fiscal years. A similar observation is seemingly apposite to the purported reliance by the taxpayer applicants upon the following dictum of Heydon JA (as he then was and with whom Spigelman CJ and Mason P agreed), in R v O'Halloran [2000] NSWCCA 528 ; (2000) 36 ACSR 315 at 342-344, in the course of which his Honour observed that '[t]he law prevents Mrs Fenwick relitigating in civil proceedings issues decided in earlier civil proceedings; it does not necessarily prevent a non-party, namely the director, litigating issues for the first time in criminal proceedings' . What of course is here relevantly involved are civil proceedings alone.