This case concerns whether a taxpayer could make serial requests to appeal an objection decision4. It shows that the remedial aspects of a provision will not necessarily resolve constructional choice.
It was accepted (at ) that the taxpayer argument was ‘open on the bare text’ and that the provision was remedial in one sense at least. These factors alone, however, were not enough. The particular purpose (at ) was to provide a mechanism by which a taxpayer could trigger an enforceable deadline for the making of a determination. iTip – just because a provision is beneficial in some sense will not resolve all issues in favour of the protagonist5.
This principle is from Episode 91 of interpretation NOW!
4 s 106(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (VIC).
5Melbourne Water v Vaughan Constructions  VSCA 241 also illustrates.