Uber Case Assignment-Business Law-LAW105
11 Pages2691 Words151 Views
Charles Darwin University
Introduction to Business Law (LAW105)
Added on 2020-03-04
About This Document
On September 11, Mr Brian Colin Fine provided Uber X services to Uber X riders or passengers. The question in issue in this proceeding is whether the service provided by Mr Colin constituted supply taxi travel within, for which their drivers are required to be registered for GST purposes. As per the contentions submitted by both parties, it is observed that both parties agreed on the relevant principles of statutory construction. You will know more about-The issue of the Case, the reasoning, and An order made by the Court.
Uber Case Assignment-Business Law-LAW105
Charles Darwin University
Introduction to Business Law (LAW105)
Added on 2020-03-04
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: RESEARCH ESSAY- CASE NOTEResearch Essay(Case Note)Name of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1RESEARCH ESSAY- CASE NOTEFederal Court of AustraliaUber B.V. v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 110Judge: Griffiths JBrief statement of material factsOn September 11, Mr. Brian Colin Fine provided Uber X services to Uber X riders orpassenger. The question in issue in this proceeding is whether the service provided by Mr. Colinconstituted supply taxi travel within for which the Uber drivers are required to be registered forGST purposes. Issue of the CaseSince this case is being heard for the first time it is a case ‘at first instance’ and the legalissues arising out of the case may be: whether carrying on an enterprise that provide Uber Xservices to the Uber X riders shall constitute ‘supply taxi travel’ within the meaning of section144-5(1) as defined under section 195-1 of the Goods and Services Act; whether Mr. BrianColin Fine, being a UberX partner ‘supplied taxi travel’ on 11 September within the meaning ofsection 144-5(1) of the GST Act; whether the definition of ‘taxi travel’ under section 195-1 is tobe interpreted as a composite phrase.ReasoningThe enterprises whose turnover is less than $75000 are not required to register for GST.However, there is an exception to this rule stipulated under section 144-5 in Pt 4-5(1) of theGoods and Service Tax Act 1999 according to which the limousine and the taxi drivers are
2RESEARCH ESSAY- CASE NOTErequired to register for GST purposes irrespective of the stipulated turnover1. The provisionunder section 144-5(1) of the Act states that any person who is carrying on an enterprise isrequired to register for GST purposes only if such enterprise supplies taxi travel. The phrase ‘taxi travel’ is defined under section 195-1 of the GST Act as any travelwhich involves travelling the passengers for fares either by taxi or by limousine. If the servicesprovided to the UberX passengers or Uber X Riders falls within the definition or meaning of thedefinition of ‘supply taxi travel’ under section 144-5 (1), the Uber X drivers or the Uber Xpartners are under statutory obligation to register themselves for GST purposes. As per the contentions submitted by both the parties, it is observed that both the partiesagreed on the relevant principles of statutory construction. The Court agreed with the contentionsubmitted by the Commissioner that while considering a particular text, it is important toconsider the context and the questions of context which should be dealt with in the first instanceand not when it gives rise to ambiguity2. In order to interpret the legal meaning of the Div 144the court considered the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that introduced the Div 144 inthe GST Act. The memorandum clearly explained that the exception created by the Div 144 withrespect to taxis has given rise to several difficulties with respect to the fact that only few taxidrivers were being registered for GST purposes. This implied that unregistered taxi drivers arerequired to be registered for GST purposes. The court further asserted that Div 144 was introduced with a view to resolve thisproblem and obligating every person who supplied ‘taxi travel’ to be registered for and remit1Yuan, Helena. "Mid market focus: The sharing economy and taxation."Taxation in Australia51.6 (2016): 293.2Gambiza, Tipei M., and Dale Pinto. "Sharing the rides but are we sharing the profits?."Tax Specialist19.5 (2016):187.
3RESEARCH ESSAY- CASE NOTEGST. Under these circumstances, the court accepted the submission of the Commissionerrelating to the construction of the concept of ‘taxi travel’ as defined under section 195-1 to beinterpreted broadly. The court has applied a non-technical and broad approach while interpreting the relevantprovisions of the GST Act. The court observed that while interpreting the phrase ‘taxi travel’ it isimportant to consider the fact that the legislative provision in the GST Act directs any personwho ‘supplies taxi travel’ to register for GST irrespective of the fact that they meet therequirement of registration3. This emphasizes on the necessity to interpret the legislation in acommon sense and in a practical manner with a view to avert any approach that is undulytechnical and literal as was observed in Saga Holidays Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2005].The court based its reasoning about applying a common approach on the judgment held in theLansell House Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2011]. The issue at the core of this proceeding is whether the definition of ‘taxi travel’ undersection 195-1 is to be interpreted as a composite phrase. The relevant principles guidinginterpretation of the composite phrase can be observed in the Sea Shepherd case, where GordonJ summarized that the function of the court is to interpret the language of the statute and not theindividual words and the court must not pull apart a composite phrase within a provision insteadselect one meaning separate it from the context in which it appears and then reassemble thestatutory provision4. The court stated that it may be the phrase of ‘taxi travel’ under section 195-1 of the GST Act is itself a composite phrase but it is important to lay more emphasis on the3Sun, Carlos, and Praveen Edara. "Is getting an Uber-Lyft from a sidecar different from hailing a taxi? Currentdynamic ridesharing controversy."Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation ResearchBoard2536 (2015): 60-66.4Millar, Rebecca. "UberX drivers supply taxi travel and so must be registered for GST: Uber BV v Commissionerof Taxation [2017] FCA 110."World Journal of VAT/GST Law(2017): 1-8.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.