As per the given case, Ms Anstis has claimed a deduction in the income tax payable against her youth allowance income. The ATO has denied providing her with such deductions. Ms Anstis filed before the federal court of Australia and got an order in favor of her. The ATO filed an appeal before the High Court of Australia.
The Australian Taxation Administration is dealing tax system in Australia. As per the TA Act 1953, the ATO acts as the executive body under the legislation and regulate the behavior of the tax payers in the country.
The Australian Taxation Office is the main revenue collection body of the Australian government. The ATO is the statutory body of the government who has been given the power under the Australian Taxation Administration Act, 1953 to collect taxes in different tax system within the country (Alghamdi et al 2016). The ATO has the responsibility to execute and implement the tax system within the country and any other matter related to taxation and collection of government revenue within the country. As an executive body the ATO is to execute, implement and regulate the tax system within the country and regulate the behavior of tax defaulters and evaders in the country (Vann 2016).
Does it make law?
The ATO is an executive body formed under the Taxation Administration Act of the country. The parliament has given authority under the Act to formulate certain policies and regulations for the day to day smooth running of the taxation system in the country (Tran-Nam and Walpole 2016). ATO does not make statutory enactments but has the power to make rules and regulations under the taxation system in Australia. ATO engages and involves with other taxation departments on policy matters relating to tax and excise. The ATO has been granted with power by the government to instruct the OPC to prepare legislation which the ATO deems fit and necessary to administer the taxation system within Australia (Braithwaite 2017).
How does this case reflect the interaction of the different bodies under the separation of powers doctrine?
As per the given facts of the case there is an involvement of all the three tiers of the government. The three tiers of the government are the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The Australian Federal Parliament and the state legislature are the legislative body that makes laws on the taxation system within the country (Smith et al 2016). The ATO is been delegated with the power of governing and administering the taxation system within the country. The ATO is the executive body of the three tier system of the government. Whereas the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court is the judicial body of the country who decide matters in dispute. In this given case, the ATO has power to determine the tax system and High Court has the power to interpret the laws made by the parliament. Thus all three tiers are separate from each other. However, all three tiers of the government has something common to each to keep a check n the powers of other body. As per the case, here the judiciary by interpreting the law has check on using the absolute power on the general people of the country (Long Campbell and Kelshaw 2016).
What is the significance of the High Court decision in terms of tax law as it is applied within Australia?
The significance of the High Court’s decision on the given case is that the High Court has the power to determine that the lower court has given the appropriate judgment as per the facts of the case.
Alghamdi, A. and Rahim, M., 2016. Development of a Measurement Scale for User Satisfaction with E-tax Systems in Australia. In Transactions on Large-Scale Data-and Knowledge-Centered Systems XXVII (pp. 64-83). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Vann, R.J., 2016. Hybrid Entities in Australia: Resource Capital Fund III LP Case.
Tran-Nam, B. and Walpole, M., 2016. Tax disputes, litigation costs and access to tax justice. eJournal of Tax Research, 14(2), p.319.
Braithwaite, V. ed., 2017. Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion. Routledge.
Smith, F., Smillie, K., Fitzsimons, J., Lindsay, B., Wells, G., Marles, V., Hutchinson, J., O’Hara, B., Perrigo, T. and Atkinson, I., 2016. Reforms required to the Australian tax system to improve biodiversity conservation on private land. Environmental and planning law journal, 33(5), pp.443-450.
Long, B., Campbell, J. and Kelshaw, C., 2016. The justice lens on taxation policy in Australia. St Mark's Review, (235), p.94.