shopping_cart

Your shopping cart is empty

The Legal Nature of a Conclusion; Finding of fact v's Decision of law: some comments on Mochkin

Member Price: $22.00
Non Member Price: $28.00

DisclaimerThis material is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from The Tax Institute.
Unless expressly stated, opinions are not that of The Tax Institute, which accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within it.

Published on 01 Apr 03 by "TAXATION IN AUSTRALIA" JOURNAL ARTICLE

Tax lawyers may be tantalized by unusual things. One of them may be the legal nature of the statutory conclusion of dominant purpose contemplated by s 177D as dealt with by the Full Federal Court in FCT v Mochkin [2002] FCAFC 15.

Author profile

Justice Gaetano Pagone
Tony has returned to practice as a barrister, after retiring from the Federal Court of Australia where he had been the national co-ordinating judge of the Taxation National Practice Area. Before his appointment to the Federal Court he was a judge of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Victoria and had been the judge in charge of the Commercial Court of that Court. He practised widely in taxation law, commercial law, administrative law, constitution law, public and human rights law during his career at the Bar. He was also Special Counsel to the Australian Taxation Office between 2002 and 2004. He is a professorial fellow of the Melbourne Law School and lectures in several post-graduate courses at the Melbourne Law School and from time to time in the Law Faculty at Monash University. He was the President of the International Association of Judges from October 2018 to September 2021 and had been on the board of the International Association of Tax Judges. - Current at 17 November 2021
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Tony PAGONE QC.

 

Copyright Statement