FCT v Jayasinghe [2017] HCA 26
‘No one has ever made an acontextual statement’11 … and neither does parliament! Context is always important12. In this case, the issue was the meaning of ‘holds an office in an international organisation’ in a tax exemption. The word ‘office’ (at [31]) ‘must not be read in isolation; it must be read in context’13. This showed permanence was not necessary.
What counted was structure of the organisation, taxpayer status, and terms of engagement. Having neither authority or status as a project manager with a UN body in Sudan, he did not hold any ‘office’. His income, therefore, was not exempt.
This case is from Episode 27 of interpretationNOW!
Footnotes:
11 Kirin-Amgen [2004] UKHL 46 (at [64]), Zhang [2016] NSWCA 370 (at [68]).
12 Mainteck [2014] NSWCA 184 (at [73]), Steyn (2003) 25 Sydney LR 5 (at 5).
13 cf Cunneen [2015] HCA 14 (at [57]), Sykes [1992] HCA 60 (at [17]).