Case B10
Judges:FE Dubout Ch
G Thompson M
N Dempsey M
Court:
No. 3 Board of Review
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
Disclaimer and notice of copyright applicable to materials provided by CCH Australia Limited
CCH Australia Limited ("CCH") believes that all information which it has provided in this site is accurate and reliable, but gives no warranty of accuracy or reliability of such information to the reader or any third party. The information provided by CCH is not legal or professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, no responsibility for damages or loss arising in any way out of or in connection with or incidental to any errors or omissions in any information provided is accepted by CCH or by persons involved in the preparation and provision of the information, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, from the use of or results obtained from information supplied by CCH.
The information provided by CCH includes history notes and other value-added features which are subject to CCH copyright. No CCH material may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy for your personal use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In particular, the reproduction of any part of the information for sale or incorporation in any product intended for sale is prohibited without CCH's prior consent.
