Printable version

Decision Impact Statement

Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation & Anor

Venue: High Court of Australia
Venue Reference No: M177 of 2010
Judge Name: Full Court of the High Court
Judgment date: 28 September 2011
Appeals on foot:
Not applicable.

Administrative Treatment (Implication on current Public Rulings and Determinations)

Relevant Rulings/Determinations:

Subject References:
Constitutional law (Cth)
s 51(ii)
Superannuation guarantee charge
Whether imposed for 'public purposes'
'private and direct benefit'

Decision Outcome

Favourable

Précis

Outlines the ATO's response to the case about whether superannuation guarantee charge ("SGC"), is a tax supported by s 51(ii) of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Brief Summary of Facts

The taxpayer appealed to the High Court against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court which had upheld the constitutional validity of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 ("the Charge Act") and the Superannuation Guarantee ( Administration ) Act 1992 ("the Administration Act") .

Issues decided by the Court

The appeal to the High Court concerned the power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to taxation under s 51(ii) of the Constitution. The taxpayer challenged the validity of the provisions in the Charge Act and the Administration Act dealing with the SGC. The taxpayer argued that the SGC was not a "tax" because it was not imposed for "public purposes". This was said to be because the SGC conferred "a private and direct benefit" on the relevant employees. It followed, the taxpayer argued, that neither the Charge Act nor the Administration Act was a law with respect to taxation within the meaning of s 51(ii), and that the legislation establishing the SGC and providing for its administration was invalid.

The High Court held unanimously that the SGC was a tax, and that the taxpayer's constitutional challenge to the Administration Act and the Charge Act failed. The receipt of the proceeds of the SGC into the Consolidated Revenue Fund ("CRF") established that the SGC was imposed for "public purposes". The Court held that where other necessary constitutional criteria of a tax are met, as they were in this case, the receipt of funds into the CRF conclusively established the character of the SGC as a valid tax.

ATO view of Decision

The High Court's decision accords with the ATO view.

Administrative Treatment

Implications for ATO precedential documents

None

Implications for Law Administration Practice Statements

None

Your comments

We invite you to advise us if you feel this decision has consequences we have not identified, or if a precedential decision such as a Public Ruling or an ATO ID requires reconsideration or amendment. Please forward your comments to the contact officer by the due date.

Date Issued:	1 November 2011
Due Date:	27 December 2011
Contact officer:	Matthew Bambrick
Email address:	matthew.bambrick@ato.gov.au
Telephone:	02 6216 2691
Facsimile:	02 6216 1959
Address:	Narellan St, Canberra, ACT, 2600

Legislative References:
Constitution
51(ii)

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992
16
17

Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992
5
6

Case References:
Matthews v. Chicory Marketing Board (Vict)
[1938] HCA 38
60 CLR 263

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v. The Commonwealth
[1993] HCA 10
176 CLR 480

Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v. The Commonwealth
[1993] HCA 12
176 CLR 555
25 ATR 1
93 ATC 4118

Luton v. Lessels
210 CLR 333
2002 ATC 4311
49 ATR 471
[2002] HCA 13