In brief
Blake Dawson recently represented Qantas in an insurance duty case in the Court of Appeal. Qantas was successful and the Court dismissed the Commissioner's appeal with costs.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether insurance duty was payable under section 236 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) prior to amendments on 20 June 2006 on premiums paid to non-life insurers not registered under the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth).
Facts
The facts in this case were as follows:
-
Qantas paid premiums between 1 August 2001 and 31 March 2006 to insurers that were not registered or authorised under the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (Insurance Act).
-
Qantas objected to assessments by the Commissioner for insurance duty payable on these premiums, arguing that these premiums were not dutiable.
-
These objections were disallowed by the Commissioner and Qantas appealed the decision in the Supreme Court.
-
The Supreme Court originally found in favour of Qantas and the Commissioner appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.
The Court found that insurance duty was not payable by Qantas under section 236 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) on the premiums paid to non-life insurers not registered under the Insurance Act.
Section 236 required "a person who obtains, effects or renews any general insurance as an insured person with a person who is not a registered insurer" to lodge a return with the Commissioner 21 days after the end of the month in which the premium was paid to an insurer.
In section 248, "insurer" was relevantly defined as "a general insurer". In section 247, an insurer was not a "general insurer" unless it was registered under the Insurance Act.
The Commissioner argued that "insurer" should not bear its defined meaning in section 248 as it was not the intention of Parliament to restrict the operation of this section to insurers registered under the Insurance Act.
The Court found that such a contrary intention could not be inferred. It could not be said that section 236 "would not appropriately work" if the definition of "insurer" in section 248 applied. Nor could it be said that that there was no plausible reason for the application of this definition in section 236, as there were plausible policy reasons for restricting insurance duty to premiums paid to insurers carrying on business in Australia.
Therefore, the Court found that the defined meanings of "insurer" and "general insurer" applied such that insurance duty was payable under section 236 only on premiums paid to non-life insurers registered under the Insurance Act.
Although the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) was amended on 20 June 2006, the result in this case gives rise to a large number of potential refund claims for insurance duty paid to non-registered insurers prior to this date.
Refund claims for such insurance duty paid may also be available in other jurisdictions with similar provisions.