Following the decision in AAT Case [2014] AATA 385, Re Ogden and FCT in which the AAT confirmed that the taxpayer was not entitled to various work-related and personal investment deductions on the basis that he had not discharged the required onus of proof, the Federal Court has dismissed his appeal to the Court on the basis that it did not raise any question of law.
In arriving at its decision, the Court emphasised that the relevant rules require a precise question of law to be raised on appeal and that the existence of a question of law was now not merely a qualifying condition to an appeal, but also the subject matter of the appeal itself.
Accordingly, in this case where the taxpayer’s appeal was essentially based on “non-sequitur” statements that there had been an “incorrect application of the law” and that his claims were therefore allowable, the Court found that no question of law been identified. Furthermore, it found that the taxpayer was seeking the Court to answer questions of fact and degree rather than questions of law.
Finally, the Federal Court noted that even though the taxpayer was not represented by a legal practitioner, and that while the Courts make allowance to an unrepresented litigant, this did not detract from the fundamental point that the Court’s jurisdiction is only enlivened where a question of law is raised for determination.
(Ogden v FCT [2014] FCA 1111, Federal Court, Edmonds J, 16 October 2014.)
[LTN 201, 17/10/14]