Case U78

Members:
IR Thompson DP
JE Stewart SM
LJ Cohn M

Tribunal:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Decision date: 2 March 1987.

---

I.R. Thompson (Deputy President), J.E. Stewart (Senior Member) and L.J. Cohn (Member)

At the conclusion of the hearing of this application for review, I stated orally the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor. Those reasons are now restated in writing.

2. There are two alternative reasons for the dismissal. First, the applicant was a company incorporated in the State of Victoria. It has been dissolved and removed from the register. There is no evidence before the Tribunal indicating that application for its reinstatement has been made. The principles which apply in that situation were stated by Ryan J. in
Marsh & Anor v. F.C. of T. 85 ATC 4345 in particular at pp. 4360 and 4361. We are satisfied the effect of the striking of the company's name from the register and its having been dissolved is that it has ceased to be a legal person. A body which is not a legal person cannot continue proceedings under Div. 2 of Pt V of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The application by... therefore, terminated when the company was dissolved. It has apparently not been revived by subsequent reinstatement to the register. That is the first reason for dismissing its application for review.

3. In case, despite the absence of evidence before us, it should transpire that the company has been reinstated to the register and that the company has become again a legal person and is deemed to have continued in existence as if its registration had not been cancelled, or in case, contrary to what was decided in Marsh, the applicant has standing to continue the proceedings notwithstanding that it has ceased to be a legal person, then it has had notice of, but it has failed to appear in person or by a representative at, this hearing. In that event its application is dismissed under sec. 42A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.