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

Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case nameNorthern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v The Commonwealth of Australia
Decided11 March 1993
Citation(s)[1993] HCA 12, (1993) 176 CLR 555
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingMason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Case opinions
(7:0) The Training Guarantee Act 1990 and the Training Guarantee (Administration) Act 1990 are valid under the taxation power

Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth,[1] is a High Court of Australia case that considered the scope of the taxation power.

Facts

Two Commonwealth Acts, the Training Guarantee Act 1990 and the Training Guarantee (Administration) Act 1990 mandated a minimum amount an employer had to spend training their workforce. Further, employers had to pay any shortfall in the amount that had to be spent in training and the actual amount to the government. Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust did not spend the minimum amount, and had to pay the difference to the government. They argued the Act was unconstitutional because it was not a valid law with respect to taxation. If the laws achieved their purpose, then no revenue would actually be collected by the Commonwealth. Further, looking at the statements of objectives of the Acts, raising revenue was not an objective.

Decision

Per Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ:

The laws were made pursuant to the taxation power. Although revenue raising was not a stated objective, it intrinsically was an objective of the Acts. More importantly, if a law on its face is one with respect to taxation, the law does not cease to have that character simply because parliament seeks to achieve a purpose not within Commonwealth power.

The plaintiffs argued that the money paid was not a tax but a fee for services. The court held that it was not a fee for services because the connection between the service and the fee was too remote. The court could not determine for what service the fee was paid.

See also

References

  1. ^ Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 12, (1993) 176 CLR 555 (11 March 1993), 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 07:41
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.