Email

Print

Today, arguments were heard about the recently passed Cruise Ship Passenger Tax Act - which sought to validate the past collection and distribution of head taxes by the BTB, the government and Fort Street Tourism Village. But while the law regularizes it in the here and now, it can't do the same for all those years when an agreement sought to authorize the collection of a tax - which cannot suffice since only parliament can impose a tax. Attorney for the Feinstein Group Andrew Marshalleck explained his client's case today:..

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Feinstein Group
"Today was about hearing arguments as to the impact to the legislation that was passed - the cruise chip passenger tax act, that sort to validate the past collection and distribution of head taxes by the BTB, the Government and the Fort Street Tourism Village. The position was that the collection and distribution of the tax was governed by agreement between the parties. The law is fundamentally that taxes can only imposed as a matter of law and under legislative authority. There was no legislative authority for the imposition or collection or sharing of the head tax. Toward the end of the case, government passed legislation in the house, a cruise ship passenger act and under section 6 of the act, that sought to validate all the imposition/collection and distribution of head taxes since 2000, to provide a legal basis for those monies that had already been in effect collected and distributed without legal authority. The claim by Mr. Feinstein had sought a number of declarations that a number of their provisions of the agreement under which this arrangement was effective, was unlawful for a variety of reasons including those providing for collection and distribution of the head tax. So today the court heard arguments as to each sides understanding of the effect of the legislation that was passed on the reliefs that were claimed in the proceedings."

Reporter
"What kind of impact will that law have now? It appears it's retroactive."

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Feinstein Group
"It's not retroactive, it's retrospective. In that it only applies from when it was passed going forward. But it applies in respect of acts done since 2000. So it looks back, but in terms of from when it's effective. It still only effective from when it was passed going forward. The long and short of it is that the provisions in the agreement was challenge as unlawful, the agreements still remains unlawful. In fact the need for the act underscores the fact that was done was unlawful. If what was done was not unlawful, you didn't need the validating legislation. So, it acknowledges that was done was illegal, but seeks to correct it and provide a legal basis for all the money that had been unlawful collected to stay where it is now. So there is no question of going back to get back any money. All of that stays exactly where it is and going forward there is a basis now for the charging and collection of the tax. But the agreement made in 2004, those provisions still remained unlawful."

Reporter
"Now, that passing of that act. Would you consider that as tampering with the case? Maybe not directly, but indirectly. Should have the government allow the case to finish before they passed that act?"

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Feinstein Group
"What they want was, seeing where things were going, a situation arose where there was uncertainty as to whether or not the head tax should be paid and collected and who is to get it. So they saw a potential vacuum and they sought to fill it before it became a problem."

Reporter
"Now how when do you perceive to get closure to this case and how will this impact Mr. Feinstein project in moving forward in a positive light?"

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Feinstein Group
"The judge has indicated that the decision will now be handed down on Tuesday. So we expect a decision on Tuesday and in terms of the impact on Mr. Feinstein's development, the government has been insisting that Mr. Feinstein indemnify the government against a possible claim for breach of contract of the very same agreement on the challenge. It now being declared that that agreement was unlawful. There is no longer any need for any such indemnity."

Justice Courtney Abel has indicated that the decision will now be handed down on Tuesday.