Thorpe v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1920] HCA 14; (1920) 27 CLR 445 (10 March 1920)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Thorpe Appellant; and The Federal Commissioner of Taxation Respondent.

H C of A

10 March 1920

Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.

Owen Dixon (with him Shelton), for the appellant.

Pigott, for the respondent.

Knox C.J.

It is said by Mr. Dixon that if the words of sec. 16 (2) of the War-time Profits Tax Assessment Act, properly construed, are applicable to the facts of this case, the assessment by the Commissioner is correct. I feel no doubt that the words are so applicable, and in my opinion they were put in the section to meet a case of this kind. The only "period" spoken of in the Act, so far as I am aware, is the "accounting period." Where the Legislature meant the "financial year," those words are used. Moreover, the option given to the Commissioner in sec. 14 (2) would be to a great extent useless on any other construction of sec. 16 (2) than that adopted by the Commissioner in making this assessment.

The answers to the questions should be: (1) Yes; (2) Yes; (3) Not answered.

Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.

concurred.

Questions answered (1) Yes; (2) Yes; (3) Not answered.

Solicitors for the appellant, Lynch, McDonald & Elliott, for Simmons, Wolfhagen, Simmons & Walsh, Hobart.

Solicitor for the respondent, Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.