Taxation Theory, Practice And Law For Law And Justice – Case Study

Sections Breached

Discuss about the Taxation Theory, Practice and Law for Law and Justice.

Brian Pape questioned receiving a tax bonus reward installment from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth had conceived the extra installments plot as a measure to ward of the impacts of the worldwide money related emergency. Pape tested the legitimacy of the enactment sanctioned to approve the installment of the reward to specific classes of citizens (Kerr, 2009). The Commonwealth acknowledged that Pape had an individual enthusiasm for testing the operation of the expense reward enactment as it connected to him and in looking for a request keeping the Commissioner of Taxation from paying him the cash.

Given the Commonwealth’s concession that Pape had standing, the Court was calmed of the weight of considering whether a protest to the receipt of an unassuming reward installment (instead of the installment of an obligation) was an adequate enthusiasm for standing purposes (Grant & Dollery, 2010).

The Commonwealth, nonetheless, argued that there was a confinement of Pape’s remaining in that he didn’t have remaining to look for an assertion that the law was invalid completely: that is, in its general application to different citizens also. Notwithstanding, this was dismisses by all judges, with Gummow, Crennan and Bell JJ remarking that the contention gave “inadequate weight to the place of the manager of law in the plan of the Constitution” (Thomas, 2009).

The Court’s finding on standing implied that Pape could challenge parts of the program that went past his own private advantages and into the realm of sacred influence of the Commonwealth to spend public cash.

It’s clear from the proceedings that Mr. Pape as a tax payer was entitled to receiving a $250 under the bonus act (Gordon et al, 2015). Therefore, his defense team decided to submit four questions to the high court in determination of the best strategy or special case which would help in rules of the court, they include:

1. Does Mr Pape have remaining to look for the alleviation guaranteed in his Writ of Summons and his Proclamation of Claim?
2. Is the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 (Cth) legitimate in light of the fact that it is bolstered by at least one communicated or inferred heads of administrative power under the Province Constitution?
3. Is installment of the tax bonus to which Mr Pape is entitled under the Bonus Act bolstered by legitimate allotment under sections 81 and 83 of the Constitution?
4. Who ought to pay the expenses of this special case?

The Commonwealth agitated Mr Pape staged to fight that the portion to him under the Bonus Act was unlawful, however displayed that he didn’t have satisfactory uncommon energy to battle the more broad issue that the Bonus Act was invalid in its application to various individuals. No individual from the Court acknowledged this accommodation (Lynch, 2011). Findings by the Court was that the portion being rewarded to Mr Pape was unlawful in light of the way that the Bonus Act was invalid would tie in any resulting wrangle about concerning the authenticity of the Bonus Act.All individuals from the Court discovered that Mr Pape had remaining to look for an affirmation of shortcoming.

Background to Litigation of Case

The Court, largely felt that the held Bonus Act was a considerable law of the District Parliament, supported by s 51(xxxix) of the Constitution as being unplanned to the practice by Commonwealth Government officials impacting under section 61 of the Constitution (Beunen & Duineveld, 2010).

Question 3: Mr Pape fought that the money that ought to have been paid to natives under the Bonus Act had not been appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by law, as required by s 83 of the Constitution. He likewise contended that, regardless of the possibility that there had been an assignment by law, it was not an apportionment “for the reasons for the Commonwealth”. Segment 81 of the Constitution expresses: All livelihoods or assets raised or got by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth ought to shape one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the inspirations driving the Commonwealth in the way and subject to the charges and liabilities constrained by this Constitution. The Court held by lion’s share that there was an assignment by law (Lehtonen et al, 2009). Section 16 of the Taxation Act 1953 appropriated the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the portion of specific aggregates the Commissioner is required to pay under any “tax laws”. Fragment 3 of the reward Act had the effect of making the Bonus Act an “assessment gathering law”.The Bonus Act expanded the measure of cash to be pulled back from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under a current appointment. That was adequate to meet the necessity of s 83.

The Court held that areas 81 and 83 don’t themselves approve any consumption; rather they needed the spending of government assets to be legalized by Parliament.

In understanding with an assentation between the gatherings the Court made no request for costs.

• This announcement is not proposed to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be utilized as a part of any later thought of the Court’s reasons.

Before looking at the decision made by the high courts in regards to the case. Perhaps, it would be significant to provide a brief litigation that is pertained to the case. In light of the worldwide financial crisis, and as a major aspect of its monetary jolt bundle, the Commonwealth instituted the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 (Cth) (“the Bonus Act”) giving certain citizens a reward (Grant et al, 2010) . Australian residents who had an assessable salary of under $100,000 for the 2007-8 wage year were qualified for an installment of up to $900. The offended party, a man qualified for a reward installment, tested the established legitimacy of the enactment.

High Court’s Decision

Segment 81 of the Australian Constitution gives all earnings or money raised or got by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth ought to shape one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the inspirations driving the Commonwealth in the way and subject to the charges and liabilities constrained by this Constitution. Prior to Pape, there had been not very many cases on Commonwealth assignments and, tragically, those choices had not created clear standards (Williams, 2015). While it has been clear as far back as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Case (Attorney-General (Victoria); Dale v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 237) that section 81 is not a wide wellspring of administrative influence, the potential degree for utilizing section 81 to approve appointments for Commonwealth spending programs has been the subject of contrasting perspectives.

On one view (regularly alluded to as the expansive view) of the allocations influence, it was felt that Parliament alone could figure out what a “motivation behind the Commonwealth” was. When Parliament made that assurance, then the allotment, and the spending of the appropriated cash, couldn’t be tested. On another view (frequently alluded to as the slender view), to be substantial, an apportionment must be for a reason that could be found inside the Constitution itself (Anderson et al, 2010). That reason may be found by reference to the heads of administrative, official or legal influence and, on most records, incorporated the influence, regardless of whether authoritative or official, that gets from the foundation of the Commonwealth as a “country”. On both the wide and tight perspectives, the allocation had outcomes for the spending of the cash: if an assignment was substantial, then the spending was therefore approved.

On a third view, most obviously set out by Justice Mason in the AAP Case (Victoria v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 338), the assignment and installment out of the united income reserve was to be recognized from the spending of the appropriated cash by the official government. On this view, an allotment could be for any reason that Parliament chose. Moreover, if the apportionment included just the installment of cash to a third individual outside the Commonwealth government, then the appointment would approve that installment. Nonetheless, if the utilization of the appropriated cash included move to be made by Commonwealth officers and offices, then free expert for the making of that move must be built up. On a fourth view, proposed by Justices Jacobs and Stephen in the AAP Case, allocations couldn’t be tested in light of the fact that they were inside matters amongst Parliament and the official (Appleby & McDonald, 2011). As Justice Jacobs stated, an allotment is close to a “reserving” of cash.

Against this mix of views, the High Court considered the challenge in Pape. In four separate judgments (Chief Justice French; Justices Gummow, Crennan and Bell; Justices Hayne and Kiefel; Justice Heydon), the Court held that section 81 of the Constitution only provides parliamentary authority for the appropriation of money to the executive: it is not a spending power. In this respect, the Court referred with approval to the views of Justices Jacobs and Stephen in AAP. Consequently, section 81 could not provide support for the provisions of the Bonus Act creating an entitlement to the payment of the bonus – it could only support the appropriation of the money for that purpose (McLeod, 2010).

Like Justice Mason in AAP, the majority differentiated between the appropriation and the spending of the money. However, Justice Mason seemed to have accepted that appropriated money could be paid to third persons without any further power required. The Court in Pape has rejected that view. The only executive involvement in the bonus scheme was the payment of the appropriated money to those entitled to a bonus payment. However, section 81 was insufficient to support the creation of the entitlement and the payment of the bonuses. The power had to be found from another place.

At this point the Court divided 4 to 3, with a majority of judges (Chief Justice French; Justices Gummow, Crennan and Bell) holding that the executive power in section 61, along with the express incidental power in section 51, provided sufficient support for the provisions of the Bonus Act. For the majority, the executive power in section 61 was wide enough to take action peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation. On the facts, it extended to short-term fiscal measures to address economic conditions affecting the nation as a whole: this was a national financial crisis and only the Commonwealth had the resources to respond promptly. The express incidental power authorised the supporting legislation that created the entitlement to the bonus and authorised its payment (Johnston, 2011).

The dissenting judges (Justices Hayne and Kiefel; Justice Heydon) were not convinced that a national economic emergency was sufficient to trigger the executive power in section 61. Although that power could extend to putting down subversive activities and endeavours, it could not cover the general topic of the national economy. Nor in their view could they understand that spending could be supported by the external affairs power (section 51(xxix)), the trade and commerce power (section 51(i)), or the taxation power (section 51(ii)) (Barbara & Scott, 2010).

Pape is a suggestion to government divisions and organizations to contemplate their spending programs. Programs can’t be planned on the supposition that segment 81 will approve the spending of cash on whatever exercises or targets the administration likes. A legitimate appointment won’t approve the spending of cash – whether that spending includes exercises with respect to Commonwealth officers or offices or basically includes an installment to outsiders (Anthony, 2011). For some Commonwealth officers and offices, Pape won’t have a lot of an effect. For others, judicious strides ought to be taken when planning spending projects to guarantee that Commonwealth spending does not surpass the cutoff points set out in the choice.

References

Kerr, D. (January 01, 2009). Pape v Commissioner of Taxation: Fresh Fields for     Federalism?. Law and Justice Journal, 9, 2, 311-323.

Grant, B., & Dollery, B. (January 01, 2010). Constitutionalism, Federalism and Reform?: Pape V Commissioner of Taxation and Anor – a Conversation with Bryan Pape. Public      Policy, 5, 1, 53-63.

Appleby, G., & McDonald, S. (January 01, 2011). The Ramifications of Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation for the Spending Power and Legislative Powers of the         Commonwealth. Monash University Law Review, 37, 2, 162-189.

Thomas, D. (September 06, 2009). Commonwealth Power and the Fiscal Stimulus. Bar News: the Journal of the Nsw Bar Association, 28-29.

Gordon, E. A., Bischof, J., Daske, H., Munter, P., Saka, C., Smith, K. J., & Venter, E. R. (February 01, 2015). The IASB’s Discussion Paper on the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: A Commentary and Research Review. Journal of International     Financial Management & Accounting, 26, 1, 72-110.

Lynch, A. (December 01, 2011). Commonwealth financial powers – taxation, direct spending and grants – scope and limitations. Public Policy, 6, 23-32.

Beunen, R., & Duineveld, M. (January 01, 2010). Divergence and Convergence in Policy Meanings of European Environmental Policies: The Case of the Birds and Habitats Directives. International Planning Studies, 15, 4, 321-333.

Lehtonen, M., Ruhanen, A., Michahelles, F., Fleisch, E., & 2009 IEEE International Conference on RFID (IEEE RFID 2009). (April 01, 2009). Serialized TID numbers – A headache or a   blessing for RFID crackers?. 233-240.

Grant, Bligh, & Dollery, Brian. (2010). Constitutionalism, federalism and reform? Pape v Commissioner of Taxation & Anor: a conversation with Bryan Pape. 53-63.) Curtin University of Technology, John Curtin Institute of Public Policy.

Williams, G. (July 01, 2015). Bryan Pape and his legacy to the law. University of Queensland Law Journal, The, 34, 1.)

Anderson, G., Brady, M., Guthrie, R., Meredith, F., Purse, K., Grant, B., & Dollery, B. (2010). Public policy. Perth, W.A: John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin    University of Technology.

McLeod, A. (January 01, 2010). The Executive and Financial Powers of the Commonwealth: Pape v Commissioner of Taxation. The Sydney Law Review, 32, 1, 123-140.

Johnston, Peter. (2011). Pape’s Case: What Does It Say About Standing As An Attribute of ‘Access To Justice’?. [email protected]

Appleby, G., & McDonald, S. (January 01, 2011). The ramifications of pape v federal commissioner of taxation for the spending power and legislative powers of the            commonwealth. Monash University Law Review, 37, 2, 162-189.

Anthony, G. (March 01, 2011). Federal Spending Power in Three Federations: Australia, Canada and the United States. Common Law World Review, 40, 1, 13-39.

Barbara, A. H., & Scott, G. (October 01, 2010). Federalism and Tax Bonuses: Reflections in the Australian Context. Common Law World Review, 39, 4, 379-418.