Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Jones
2 ATR 641(1971) 125 CLR 511
(1971) 46 ALJR 50
[1971] AEGR 66,086
[1971] HCA 67
(Decision by: Barwick CJ)
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW)
vJones
Judges:
Barwick CJMcTiernan J
Menzies J
Windeyer J
Owen J
Case References:
Carapark Holdings Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (1967) 115 CLR 653
Barclays Bank Ltd v Attorney-General - (1944) AC 372
Wayne v Commissioner of Stamp Duties - (1966) 85 WN 301; (1966) 2 NSWR 309
Barclays Bank Ltd v Attorney-General - (1944) AC 372
Lever Bros and Unilever Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners - (1945) 1 All ER 145
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee co Ltd - (1926) 38 CLR 12
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Gale) - (1958) 101 CLR 96
Wayne v Commissioner of Stamp Duties - (1966) 85 WN 301; (1966) 2 NSWR 309; (1969) 91 WN (NSW) 51
Gould v Curtis - (1913) 3 KB 84
The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (1959) 102 CLR 29
Barclays Bank Ltd v Attorney-General - (1944) AC 372
Wayne v Commissioner of Stamp Duties - (1966) 85 WN 301; (1966) 2 NSWR 309
Judgment date: 9 December 1971
Decision by:
Barwick CJ
In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Owen. I am in agreement with his conclusion that the premiums paid by the trustees of the Staff Superannuation Plan to the AMP Society in respect of the group endowment insurance policy were not paid by the deceased within the meaning and operation of s 102(2)(h) of the Stamp Duties Act (NSW).
I share with my brother Owen the doubt as to whether the group endowment insurance policy with the AMP Society is a policy on the life of the deceased within the meaning of s 102(2)(h) of the Stamp Duties Act. Indeed the inclination of my mind is that it is not. But like my brother Owen I have no need to resolve the question in this case. But in any case in my opinion the matter is not resolved merely by deciding that according to ordinary concepts of insurance the policy ought to be regarded as in the category of life insurance. The question is rather whether the nature of the policy satisfied the words of s 102(2)(h) bearing in mind the evident purpose of the subsection as a whole and to the provisions of the other paragraphs in association with which para (h) is found.
I would dismiss the appeal.