This HTML5 document contains 58 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n10http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1949/
n15https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n16http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
goldhttp://purl.org/linguistics/gold/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Parton_v_Milk_Board_(Vic)
rdf:type
yago:Case107308889 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 dbo:Place yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608
rdfs:label
Parton v Milk Board (Vic)
rdfs:comment
Parton v Milk Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 of the Australian Constitution. In this case, the tax was calculated as a fixed amount per gallon of milk, and imposed on retailers, instead of at the production phase; this was held to be invalid as imposing a duty of excise. This heralded in the broad approach to section 92 - where a "tax upon a commodity at any point in the course of distribution before it reaches the consumer produces the same effect as a tax upon its manufacture or production" (per Dixon J). Rich and Williams JJ agreed with Dixon J, stating that a tax at a later stage in the handling of a good is in effect a tax on the production or manufacture of the good.
dbp:name
Parton v Milk Board
foaf:depiction
n16:Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg
dcterms:subject
dbc:1949_in_case_law dbc:Excise_in_the_Australian_Constitution_cases dbc:High_Court_of_Australia_cases dbc:1949_in_Australian_law
dbo:wikiPageID
5622571
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1100119998
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbc:1949_in_Australian_law dbc:1949_in_case_law dbr:Justices dbr:Owen_Dixon dbr:Section_92_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia dbr:Chief_Justice_of_Australia dbr:High_Court_of_Australia dbr:Australian_constitutional_law dbr:Section_90_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia dbr:Edward_McTiernan dbr:George_Rich dbc:Excise_in_the_Australian_Constitution_cases dbc:High_Court_of_Australia_cases dbr:Dudley_Williams_(judge) dbr:George_Winterton dbr:Peterswald_v_Bartley dbr:John_Latham_(jurist) dbr:Constitution_of_Australia
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n10:67.pdf
owl:sameAs
wikidata:Q7140801 n15:4tDkV freebase:m.0dwtxt
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Cite_AustLII dbt:Reflist dbt:Refimprove dbt:Abbr dbt:Italics_title dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Infobox_court_case dbt:Use_Australian_English dbt:Short_description
dbo:thumbnail
n16:Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg?width=300
dbp:court
dbr:High_Court_of_Australia
dbp:judges
Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Williams JJ
dbo:abstract
Parton v Milk Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 of the Australian Constitution. In this case, the tax was calculated as a fixed amount per gallon of milk, and imposed on retailers, instead of at the production phase; this was held to be invalid as imposing a duty of excise. This heralded in the broad approach to section 92 - where a "tax upon a commodity at any point in the course of distribution before it reaches the consumer produces the same effect as a tax upon its manufacture or production" (per Dixon J). Rich and Williams JJ agreed with Dixon J, stating that a tax at a later stage in the handling of a good is in effect a tax on the production or manufacture of the good. Latham CJ dissented, using Peterswald v Bartley, and McTiernan J felt that it should be employed in a narrower sense, to make it fit within what he perceived to be the object of the section, which was to promote a "uniform fiscal policy for the Commonwealth".
dbp:dateDecided
1949-12-21
dbp:opinions
The broad approach to excise in section 90 is to be taken
gold:hypernym
dbr:Court
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Parton_v_Milk_Board_(Vic)?oldid=1100119998&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
3190
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Parton_v_Milk_Board_(Vic)