Case B10

Judges:
FE Dubout Ch
G Thompson M
N Dempsey M

Court:
No. 3 Board of Review

Judgment date: 6 March 1970.

---

F. E. Dubout (Chairman), G. Thompson and N. Dempsey (Members): The question for decision in this reference in whether the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction ascertained in accordance with para. (c) of sec. 79A(2), that is to say, a deduction granted to a person who has resided in, or has actually been in, the area comprised in Zone A and Zone B for more than one-half of the year of income. The year of income in respect of which the reference arises is the year ended 30 June 1968.

2. Although the taxpayer failed to appear for the hearing of his reference, it was possible for the Board to proceed upon the basis of a statement of agreed facts and a copy of extracts from a ship's log which were accepted as evidence. Shortly stated, the facts are-

(a) Throughout the relevant year the taxpayer's residential address was in a suburb of a capital city and port, located outside the boundaries of the prescribed area referred to in sec. 79A.

(b) During the whole of that year, the taxpayer was employed as a member of the crew of a ship.

(c) The ship operates to provide service at points ranging from the capital city to an island lying adjacent to the coastline of a portion of Australia which lies within Zone A as described in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Assessment Act.

(d) During the year in question, the ship was in Australian coastal waters adjacent to Zone A for 16 weeks and 4 days, and in waters adjacent to Zone B for 13 week and 5 days.

3. Apart from the fact that in this case the ship moves through waters adjoining both parts of the prescribed area, the facts are no distinguishable from those upon which this Board had to decide in 69 ATC Case A47. As the cases differ only in an aspect which is immaterial, the Board feels that in the circumstances it should reaffirm its decision in the earlier reference, and disallow the taxpayer's objection. For a full statement of the views of individual Board members on this matter, reference may be made to the report of Case A47. For present purposes, it is sufficient to say that it is the view of the Board that in the definitions of Zone A and Zone B in Parts I and II respectively of the Second Schedule to the Assessment Act, the word ``mainland'' does not comprehend coastal waters.

4. The Commissioner's assessment is confirmed.

Claim disallowed