Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Air Caledonie v Commonwealth
|
The High Court ruled that for a fee to not be a tax, there must be an identifiable service rendered, and the fee must be directly related to the provision of the service.
|
|
|
Airservices Australia v Canadian Airlines
|
The High Court ruled that the reasons for which the fee was levied were in the public interest, and served to benefit the plaintiff.
|
|
|
R v Barger
|
The High Court ruled that intentional discrimination violated s51(ii).
|
|
|
Elliot v Commonwealth
|
The High Court ruled that incidental discrimination was constitutional.
|
|
|
Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
|
The High Court ruled that the Parliament may use taxes to regulate certain activities that normally fall outside Commonwealth jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Dickenson's Arcade v Tasmania
|
The High Court ruled that states may impose consumption taxes.
|
|
|
Peterswald v Bartley
|
The High Court ruled that the licence was not an excise duty, as it did not relate to output.
|
|
|
Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board
|
The High Court ruled that the quotas were an excise duty, and thus unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Capital Duplicators v Australian Capital Territory (No 2)
|
The High Court ruled that an excise duty relates to the production or distribution of goods, rather than the sales.
|
|
|
AAP Case
|
The High Court ruled that funds raised by the Commonwealth but used by local councils was constitutional, as this use by the councils was considered a purpose as authorized by the Parliament. The 'purposes of the commonwealth' are whatever purposes the Parliament chooses.
|
|
|
Second Uniform Tax Case
|
The High Court ruled that the Commonwealth can grant states funds raised by the Commonwealth. The 'purposes of the commonwealth' are whatever purposes the Parliament chooses.
|
|
|
Combet v Commonwealth
|
The High Court ruled that there is no real requirement for how specific Parliament must be in expressing appropriations.
|
|
|
Pape v Commissioner of Taxation
|
The High Court ruled that there are no real restrictions on how appropriations may be spent, prolonging that they are authorized by the Parliament.
|
