Commissioner v Special Situations [2026] QCA 98
This case illustrates the point made in Cooper Brookes above. The issue was whether certain shares were ‘group property’ under State land-rich provisions3. Gotterson AJA quoted the High Court in Alcan, saying that ‘tax statutes do not form a class of their own to which different rules of construction apply’4.
The fact that a statute is a taxing Act ‘is part of the context and is therefore relevant to the task of construing the Act in accordance with … settled principles’5. The judge added, however, that ‘if, after applying the ordinary rules of interpretation, ambiguity remains, it should be resolved in favour of the taxpayer’6. Comment – this will be very rare.
This principle is from Episode 135 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
3 s 407(1)(a) Duties Act 2001 (Qld).
4 cf Smeaton [2017] NSWCA 184 [104], Carter [2020] FCAFC 150 [104].
5 Alcan [2009] HCA 41 [57], cf Sunlite [2023] FCAFC 43 [6].
6 Herzfeld & Prince [10.150], Redland [2024] HCA 7 [177], cf BDM [17.5(b)].