Prebble v Commissioner of Taxation

(2003) 131 FCR 130; [2003] FCAFC 165

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Taxation
2. › Income Tax
3. › Deductions
4. › Superannuation contributions
5. › Contributions to non-complying superannuation fund
6. › Whether taxpayer entitled to deduction under s 82AAE where taxpayer and eligible employee are the same person
7. › Whether definition of 'eligible employee' in s 82AAA(1) requires taxpayer and employee to be different persons
8. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 82AAA(1), 82AAE
1. Superannuation
2. › Complying and non-complying superannuation funds
3. › Taxation of contributions
4. › Distinction between employer contributions for employees and contributions by individuals for personal benefit
5. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 82AAC, 82AAE, 274
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Precedent
3. › Full Federal Court declining to follow earlier Full Court decision
4. › Whether earlier decision plainly or clearly wrong
5. › Standard of conviction required before departing from previous Full Court authority
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Contextual and purposive approach
3. › Legislative history as aid to construction
4. › Whether literal meaning produces anomalous result
5. › Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA

Quick Take

A taxpayer who is both the controlling shareholder and employee/director of a company cannot claim an unlimited deduction under s 82AAE of the ITAA 1936 for contributions to a non-complying superannuation fund made for his own benefit. The definition of 'eligible employee' in s 82AAA(1) requires the taxpayer and the employee to be different persons. The standard for a Full Court to depart from a previous Full Court decision is that the earlier decision must be shown to be 'plainly' or 'clearly' wrong — a standard higher than merely showing the matter is one on which minds might differ.