Puzey v Commissioner of Taxation

(2003) 201 ALR 302; [2003] FCAFC 197

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Income Tax
2. › Deductions
3. › Allowable deductions under s 51(1)
4. › Whether taxpayer carrying on a business
5. › Plantation investment scheme
6. › Whether outgoings on revenue or capital account
7. › Effect of restructuring from individual lots to pooled unit trust
8. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 51(1)
9. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 8-1
1. Income Tax
2. › Anti-avoidance
3. › Part IVA
4. › Scheme to obtain tax benefit
5. › Dominant purpose test
6. › Eight factors under s 177D(b)
7. › Grossly inflated price for seedlings
8. › Tax-effective investment marketed on basis of tax deductions
9. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 177C, 177D, 177F
1. Income Tax
2. › Assessment
3. › Validity of amended assessments
4. › Whether second amended assessment tentative
5. › Whether two assessments may exist for same taxpayer in same year
6. › Whether determination under s 177F requires Commissioner to hold deductions allowable
7. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 170(1), 177F

Quick Take

Restructuring from individual lot interests to a pooled unit trust may convert the investor from a business operator to a passive investor, rendering seedling acquisition costs capital rather than revenue, and grossly inflated prices for inputs are a strong indicator of dominant tax purpose under Part IVA.