Case Q70
Members: HP Stevens ChBR Pape M
TJ McCarthy M
Tribunal:
No. 1 Board of Review
B.R. Pape (Member)
I agree. This issue was recently considered by me in
Case
P120,
82 ATC 604
. There is nothing in the submission of senior counsel for the Commissioner which has caused me to change my view.
2. Moreover there was no evidence placed before the Board to permit me to consider the question of whether any further remission of the additional tax is warranted, should it be later found that I was wrong in finding that sec. 226(2) had no operation.
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.
