Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth

Last updated

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameAustralian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd and Others v The Commonwealth of Australia
Decided 11 March 1993
Citation(s) [1993] HCA 10, (1993) 176  CLR  480
Case opinions
(4:3) The fee imposed was a tax pursuant to section 51(ii) (per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh 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.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Contents

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.

A private copying levy is a government-mandated scheme in which a special tax or levy is charged on purchases of recordable media. Such taxes are in place in various countries and the income is typically allocated to the developers of "content".

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.

Obiter dictum is the Latin phrase meaning "by the way", that is, a remark in a judgment that is "said in passing". It is a concept derived from English common law, whereby a judgment comprises only two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only.

<i>Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth</i>

Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.

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

The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Related Research Articles

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i>

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the Court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<i>Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd</i>

Bath v Alston Holdings Pty Ltd, is a High Court of Australia case that discusses the application of the freedom of interstate trade, as specified in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia. This case followed the unanimous decision of Cole v Whitfield, regarding the interpretation of section 92 as about free trade as opposed to individual rights.

<i>Peterswald v Bartley</i> legal case heard in the High Court of Australia in 1904

Peterswald v Bartley is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria</i>

Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying customs or excise duties. Although some of the judges used the now-discredited criterion of liability approach, this case remains authority for cases that are factually similar to it.

<i>Ha v New South Wales</i>

Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>R v Barger</i>

R v Barger is a High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power did not permit the Australian Parliament to use an excise tariff as a means of protecting manufacturers who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<i>Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation is a High Court of Australia case that considered the scope of the taxation power in section 51(ii) of the Constitution.

<i>Northern Suburbs General Cemetery Reserve Trust v Commonwealth</i>

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

<i>South Australia v Commonwealth</i>

South Australia v Commonwealth is a decision of the High Court of Australia that established the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax across the country and displace the State. It was a major contributor to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government, and was thus a watershed moment in the development of federalism in Australia.

<i>Victoria v Commonwealth</i> (1957)

Victoria v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that affirmed the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax, adding to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government.

<i>Austin v Commonwealth</i>

Austin v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with issues of intergovernmental immunity and discrimination of states against Commonwealth power.

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which seeks to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with reasons to follow later.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

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.

George Graham Winterton was an Australian academic specialising in Australian constitutional law. Winterton taught for 28 years at the University of New South Wales before taking up an appointment of Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney in 2004.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.