Problem:

Download the case of Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis [2010] HCA 40 using the following link, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2010/40.html

1. Who was the appellant and who was the respondent in the case?

2. Name the Judges who heard the case.

3. Give the procedural history of the case (in no more than three sentences).

4. Summarise the facts of the case. (300 words)

5. Summarise the competing contentions of the appellant and the respondent (in no more than two sentences).

6. Summarise the reasoning of the majority in finding that the "income was assessable, the expenses claimed were deductible and not of a private nature, and the appeal should be dismissed".   (500 words)

7. Select three cases used as authority by the majority to support their decision. Explain, in your own words, how the majority used the authority in support of, or to distinguish from, their decision. (500 words)

8. Explain the minority decision of Heydon J. (200 words)

9. What was the final decision of the High Court? (Summarise the decision in no more than two sentences.)

10. What does the decision of the majority mean for taxpayers who receive social security benefits, the receipt of which is contingent on the beneficiary satisfying 'activity tests' that may result in the taxpayer incurring losses or outgoings? (500 words)

Summary

These questions deal with Revenue Law and they belong to the case Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis [2010] HCA 40. Various questions belonging to the case such as the facts of the case, procedural history of the case, the competing contentions of the appellant and the respondent, the final decision of the High Court have been discussed in detail in the solution.

Total Word Limit: 2135 Words