To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case nameAustralian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd and Others v The Commonwealth of Australia
Decided11 March 1993
Citation(s)[1993] HCA 10, (1993) 176 CLR 480
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingMason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Case opinions
(4:3) The fee imposed was a tax pursuant to section 51(ii) (per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ)

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth ("blank tapes levy case"),[1] is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    44 593
  • Paul Keating in conversation with Kerry O'Brien

Transcription

Facts

The Commonwealth made an amendment to the Copyright Act 1968 which was designed to compensate copyright owners for the domestic and private taping of audio material not deemed to be illegal. The money was not paid to the Commonwealth, but to a private entity that distributed the funds to copyright owners as a private copying levy.

Decision

The Court majority (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Gaudron JJ) relied on dicta from Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth,[2] and ruled that the collecting body of a fee does not have to be a public body for the fee to be regarded as a tax. Therefore, a levy collected by a private body dictated by a statute for public purposes gives the private body a public character. The decision also raised the notion of raising taxes for the public interest.

The decision also contained a strong dissent from the minority (Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ). They were critical of the dicta from Air Caledonie as it contained no principles, and no examples. They did not view the fee paid as tax because it was not paid into general government consolidated revenue (Section 81 of the Constitution requires taxes to be paid into consolidated revenue). The royalty imposed by the government was a special type of debt that did not satisfy the elements of taxation. McHugh J added that the term "public purpose" meant government purpose, and the fee imposed had no government purpose. The Commonwealth played a merely supervisory role.

See also

References

  1. ^ Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth ("blank tapes levy case") [1993] HCA 10, (1993) 176 CLR 480 (11 March 1993), High Court
  2. ^ Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 61, (1988) 165 CLR 462 (24 November 1988), High Court.
  • Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
This page was last edited on 24 July 2022, at 06:23
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.