This index consolidates the case, ruling and authority links embedded in the substantive chapters. Use the chapter discussion to see why the authority matters and which statutory element it explains.
| Case / authority | Chapter(s) |
|---|
| (If time permits) Assume the facts of Ure v FCT 81 ATC 4100 occurred today. The Commissioner argues that the excessive interest deduction should be denied under s 8-1 ITAA97. In the alternative, the Commissioner argues that, if the full deduction is otherwise available, Part IVA ITAA36 applies. | 11 |
| *Applegate v FCT 79 ATC 4307 - 'Permanent' in the context of the domicile test does not mean 'everlasting' but, rather, something that is 'more than temporary or transitory'. | 2 |
| *Arthur Murray (NSW) Pty Ltd v FCT (1965) 114 CLR 314. | 2 |
| *Brent v FCT 71 ATC 4195 | 3 |
| *Broken Hill Theatres Pty Ltd v FCT (1952) 85 CLR 423 | 9 |
| *C of T (Vic) v Phillips (1936) 55 CLR 144 | 5 |
| *Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v Harris (Surveyor of Taxes) (904) 5 TC 159 | 4 |
| *Case Z9 92 ATC 144 | 3 |
| *Charles Moore & Co (WA) Pty Ltd v FCT (1956) 95 CLR 344 | 7 |
| *FCT v Cooke & Sherden 80 ATC 4140 | 4 |
| *FCT v Cooke & Sherden 80 ATC 4140 and s 21A ITAA36. | 4 |
| *FCT v Cooke and Sherden 80 ATC 4140 | 3 |
| *FCT v Dixon (1952) 86 CLR 540 | 3 |
| *FCT v French (1957) 98 CLR 398 - in this case, the source of personal exertion income was the place where work is performed. | 2 |
| *FCT v Hatchett 71 ATC 4184 | 7 |
| *FCT v Myer Emporium Ltd 87 ATC 4363 | 4 |
| *FCT v Payne 2001 ATC 4027 and section 25-100 of the ITAA 97. | 7 |
| *FCT v Smith 81 ATC 4114 | 5 |
| *FCT v Snowden Wilson Pty Ltd (1958) 99 CLR 431 | 7 |
| *FCT v Spotless Services Ltd 96 ATC 5201 | 11 |
| *FCT v Studdert 91 ATC 5006 | 7 |
| *FCT v Western Suburbs Cinema Ltd (1952) 86 CLR 102 | 10 |
| *Federal Coke Company Pty Ltd v FCT 77 ATC 4255 | 4 |
| *Hall v FCT [2026] FCAFC 43 | 7 |
| *Handley v FCT 81 ATC 4165; and FCT v Forsyth 81 ATC 4157 | 7 |
| *Heavy Minerals v FCT (1966) 115 CLR 512 | 5 |
| *Higgs v Olivier [1951] Ch 899 | 3 |
| *Keily v FCT 83 ATC 4248 | 5 |
| *Kelly v FCT 85 ATC 4283 | 3 |
| *Kelly v FCT 85 ATC 4762 | 3 |
| *Levene v IRC [1928] AC 217 | 2 |
| *Lindsay v FCT (1961) 106 CLR 377 | 10 |
| *Lunney & Hayley v FCT (1958) 100 CLR 478 | 7 |
| *Lysaght v IRC [1928] AC 234 | 2 |
| *National Australia Bank Ltd v FCT 97 ATC 5153 | 9 |
| *Payne v FCT 96 ATC 4407 | 3, 4 |
| *Placer Pacific Management Pty Ltd v FCT 95 ATC 4459 | 8 |
| *Scott v FCT (1966) 117 CLR 514 | 3 |
| *Smith v FCT 87 ATC 4887 | 3 |
| *Softwood Pulp & Paper Ltd v FCT 76 ATC 4439 - Consider: | 8 |
| *Steele v FCT 99 ATC 4242. | 8 |
| *Stone v FCT 2005 ATC 4234 | 4 |
| *Sun Newspapers Ltd; Associated Newspapers Ltd v FCT (1938) 61 CLR 337 | 9 |
| *Swinford v FCT 84 ATC 4803 | 7 |
| *The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v FCT (1932) 48 CLR 113 | 7 |
| *The Squatting Investments Co Ltd v FCT (1954) 88 CLR 413 (Privy Council) | 4 |
| *Ure v FCT 81 ATC 4100 | 11 |
| *W Thomas & Co Pty Ltd v FCT (1965) 115 CLR 58. | 10 |
| *Westfield v FCT 91 ATC 4234 | 4 |
| 1. What if the taxpayer is in the business of gambling? Eg Case K25 78 | 1 |
| A lease premium is usually characterized as capital because it is a payment to secure access rather than use of a premises: Case C2 71 ATC 8. However, the the application of the CGT provisions needs to be considered in this context (eg CGT Events F1 to F5). | 5 |
| A notice must be sufficiently certain to enable the recipient to identify what is required: ANZ Ltd v Konza [2012] FCAFC 127. | 12 |
| According to paragraphs 12 and 13 of TR 92/3, the ATO considers that “[f]or a transaction to be characterised as a business operation or a commercial transaction, it is sufficient if the transaction is business or commercial in character. | 4 |
| According to the Commissioner in TR 97/23, you can only deduct repair expenditure if the relevant property was held or used for bona fide income producing purposes. | 10 |
| Advise FBC on the extent to which it can rely on TR 2011/6 and the edited private advice it researched when preparing its 2025-26 company income tax return. What alternative is available to FBC to obtain advice from the ATO, and what protection would that advice provide if FBC relies on it? Support your answer with references to relevant legislation. | 13 |
| Advise Jackson whether the $24,000 would be included in his assessable income pursuant to s 6-5 or s 15-2 ITAA97, and if so, when it is included. In doing so, consider Higgs (Inspector of Taxes) v Olivier (1951) 1 Ch 899. | 3 |
| Also note that the security for the borrowing is irrelevant in determining the deductibility of the interest: FCT v Munro (1926) 38 CLR 153. | 8 |
| Also, see Taxation Ruling TR 97/11 at paragraph 13 for a helpful summary. | 4 |
| An example of the circumstances where this might be an issue is in TR 97/23 (at para 72): | 10 |
| And at paras 21 and 22 of TR 97/23, the ATO says: | 10 |
| Another example is the building in Wangaratta Woollen Mills v FCT 69 ATC 4095, which is regarded as ‘plant’ (discussed in a later Forum). | 6 |
| As part of your revision, you are encouraged to read all of Taxation Ruling TR 2024/3: Income Tax: | 8 |
| Assefa v FCT [2009] AATA 2 - the taxpayer’s tuition costs for her nursing degree were not | 8 |
| Ballarat Brewing Co v FCT (1951) 82 CLR 364. | 2 |
| Barrat & Ors v FCT 92 ATC 4275 - partners in a pathology practice, with many staff who generated sizeable income. | 2 |
| Before lodging FBC’s 2025-26 company income tax return, Sally (on behalf of the company) considers the tax treatment of the $1,800 incurred in travelling to Western Australia to inspect the bus that FBC ultimately decided not to acquire. She searches the ATO’s website and legal database and finds Taxation Ruling TR 2011/6, which concerns deductions for business-related capital expenditure under s 40-880 ITAA97. Sally also finds several documents in the “Edited private advice” section of the ATO’s legal database involving unsuccessful expenditure on proposed acquisitions in apparently similar circumstances. | 13 |
| British Insulated & Helsby Cables v Atherton (1926) 10 TC 155 | 9 |
| But see FCT v Mitchum (1965) 113 CLR 401, where the High Court held that there is no rule of law that wages are always sourced where work is performed. In that case, the nature of the contract raised doubt whether it was simply wages for work performed in Australia. | 2 |
| C of T (Vic) v Phillips (1936) 55 CLR 144 | 5 |
| Californian Oil Products Ltd v FCT (1934) 52 CLR 28 | 5 |
| Calvert (Inspector of taxes) v Wainwright (1947) 27 TC 475 | 3 |
| Can maintenance work be a repair? On this issue, the ATO says in TR 97/23: | 10 |
| Carpentaria Transport Pty Ltd v FCT 90 ATC 4590 | 9 |
| Case K25 78 ATC 243 | 4 |
| Consider Taxation Ruling TR 2018/5. | 2 |
| Consider the following Example 1 from TR 2023/1 (at paras 111 to 113): | 2 |
| Contrast this with the valuation rule under s 6-5 ITAA97. The valuation rule under s 6-5 is the ‘realisable value’ of the relevant benefit: Donaldson v FCT 74 ATC 4192. Presumably this means the amount that a willing but not anxious purchaser would be prepared to pay for the relevant benefit (akin to the market value?). Also consider s 21 ITAA36 and the “money value” of the consideration provided. | 3 |
| DCT (SA) v Executor Trustee and Agency Co of South Australia Ltd (Carden’s case) (1938) 63 CLR 108 - sole medical practitioner. | 2 |
| Do these additional facts change the timing of when Hillary’s June 2026 salary is included in her assessable income? If so, how? Provide reasons to support your answer, including with reference to Brent v FCT 71 ATC 4195. | 2 |
| Does the expenditure need to be incurred in the same income year in which the income it is intended to produce is derived? No - see Smith v FCT (1987) 164 CLR 513 (re deductibility of premiums for an income protection insurance policy - discussed in Forum 5]: | 7 |
| Eg Kelly v FCT 85 ATC 4283 | 1 |
| Egerton-Warburton & Ors v DFCT (1934) 51 CLR 568: the full amount of the regular annuity payments were treated as ordinary income. | 5 |
| Example (adapted from TR 2011/5, at para 123 to 125) | 12 |
| Example: *Memorex Pty Ltd v FCT 87 ATC 5034 | 4 |
| Example: See *Ronpibon Tin NL v FCT; Tongkah Compound NL v FCT (1949) 78 CLR 47, where the High Court said: | 7 |
| Example: Take the example of Mr Goldfinger from Taxation Ruling 1992/3. What are the tax implications if Mr Goldfinger acquired the gold bars for $100,000 and sold them 10 days later for $70,000? | 6 |
| Explain why the receipts in FCT v Cooke & Sherden 80 ATC 4140 and FCT v Payne 96 ATC 4407 were not assessed to the taxpayers as ordinary income. | 1 |
| FCT v Anstis 2010 ATC 20-221 - see (now) s 26-19 ITAA97 | 7 |
| FCT v Anstis 2010 ATC 20-221, and s 26-19 ITAA97 | 7 |
| FCT v Brown 99 ATC 4600 | 8 |
| FCT v Collings 76 ATC 4254 | 7 |
| FCT v Cooke & Sherden 80 ATC 4140 | 11 |
| FCT v Cooper 91 ATC 4396 | 7 |
| FCT v Day 2008 ATC 20-064 | 7 |
| FCT v Dixon (1952) 86 CLR 540 | 5 |
| FCT v Dunn 89 ATC 4141 - sole practitioner with a few employees (mostly family) | 2 |
| FCT v Edwards 94 ATC 4255 | 7 |
| FCT v Faichney 72 ATC 4245 | 9 |
| FCT v Finn (1961) 106 CLR 60 | 7, 8 |
| FCT v Firstenberg 76 ATC 4049 - sole practitioner with one employee. | 2 |
| FCT v Hart & Anor 2004 ATC 4599 | 11 |
| FCT v Hatchett 71 ATC 4184 | 8 |
| FCT v Jenkins 82 ATC 4098 - a stay outside Australia for a fixed period can still be “permanent” rather than “temporary” if the period is of a substantial duration (eg 3 years in this case, although the taxpayer returned early after 18 months due to ill health). | 2 |
| FCT v La Rosa 2003 ATC 4510 - see (now) s 26-54 ITAA 97 | 7 |
| FCT v Maddalena 71 ATC 4161 | 8 |
| FCT v MI Roberts 92 ATC 4787. | 8 |
| FCT v Myer Emporium Ltd 87 ATC 4363 | 4 |
| FCT v Studdert 91 ATC 5006 | 8 |
| FCT v The Myer Emporium Ltd 87 ATC 4363 - 2nd strand: compensation for the interest that would have been received was income. | 5 |
| FCT v Vogt 75 ATC 4073 | 7 |
| FCT v Wade (1951) 84 CLR 105 | 5 |
| FCT v Walker 85 ATC 4179 | 4 |
| FCT v Whitfords Beach Pty Ltd 82 ATC 4031 | 4 |
| Ferguson v FCT 79 ATC 4261 | 4 |
| Fletcher & Ors v FCT 91 ATC 4950 | 11 |
| Henderson v FCT (1970) 119 CLR 612 - large accounting practice. | 2 |
| In FCT v Hart [2004] HCA 26, the High Court confirmed that a scheme need not comprise the whole transaction or arrangement. It may consist of part of a wider arrangement and, in some circumstances, may be confined to a single step. | 11 |
| In Re Magna Alloys & Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1980] FCA 150, Deane and Fisher J said: | 7 |
| In relation to the situation where a taxpayer makes a loss on an isolated transaction, the Commissioner outlines his view in Taxation Ruling 1992/4 as follows: | 4 |
| In Ronpibon Tin NL v FCT; Tongkah Compound NL v FCT (1949) 78 CLR 47, the High Court said: | 7 |
| In TR 2024/3, compare Examples 1, 11, and 13. What is the basis for the ATO’s conclusion in each of | 8 |
| income producing activities. Eg Martin v FCT (1954) 90 CLR 470 | 1 |
| Industrial Equity Ltd v DCT (1990) 170 CLR 649 - the High Court held that the Commissioner can use the information gathering powers to collect information in a random audit. | 12 |
| Interest - note that interest credited to an account is received constructively. There are obviously exceptions here. For example, the interest income of financial institutions is usually derived on a daily accrual basis (Taxation Ruling TR 93/27). | 2 |
| Mansfield v FCT 96 ATC 4001 | 7 |
| Martin v FCT (1953) 90 CLR 470 | 4 |
| Masters v FCT [2017] AATA 1042 - the taxpayer was permitted deductions for some of the | 8 |
| Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (1938) 60 CLR 263. | 1 |
| McCauley v FCT (1944) 69 CLR 235: a royalty payment is a payment that is calculated based on the quantity/value of a substance taken or the usage of intellectual property rights. | 5 |
| McLaurin v FCT (1961) 104 CLR 381 - whole sum treated as capital. Where a payment is received for unliquidated damages, courts are reluctant to apportion the sum into income and capital components. | 5 |
| More recently, in Hall v FCT [2026] FCAFC 43, Thawley J (in the Full Federal Court) said the following of the first positive limb of s 8-1: | 7 |
| Morris and Others v FCT 2002 ATC 4404 - sun protection items (eg sunglasses, sunhats, and sunscreen) deductible for employees required to work outdoors. | 7 |
| Mr Leary's profit is not income because the acquisition and sale of the residential property was not a business operation or commercial transaction. It was the acquisition and sale of an investment, even if a significant purpose of Leary in acquiring the property was profit-making.” [See Example 2 from TR 92/3.] | 4 |
| NT91/37 v FCT [1991] AATA 290 - the taxpayer’s pre-admission course at the College of Law | 8 |
| observations of Senior Member Evans-Bonner in YDXM v FCT [2022] AATA 2382 (at para 41): | 8 |
| Please refer to your Forum 8 notes which explains the test for the deductibility of interest under s 8-1 ITAA97 as confirmed by the High Court in Steele v DFCT 99 ATC 4242. Interest is also not normally a capital expense. | 10 |
| Read Taxation Ruling TR 2023/1. The ATO says in TR 2023/1 (at paras19-21, 29-30]: | 2 |
| Regarding the role of examples in a tax ruling, note paragraph 8 of TR 2024/3, as well as the following | 8 |
| Rutledge v IRC (1929) 14 TC 490 | 4 |
| Section 15-10 ITAA97 - Bounties and Subsidies. When does this section apply? You could also refer to Taxation Ruling TR 2006/3. | 4 |
| See also the definition of an “assessment” in s 6(1) ITAA36. An assessment is the Commissioner’s formal ascertainment of liability, not merely the paper notice: R v DCT; Ex parte Hooper (1926) 37 CLR 368. | 12 |
| Students are encouraged to read Taxation Ruling TR 97/23: Income tax: deductions for repairs. | 10 |
| Take the example of Mr Goldfinger from Taxation Ruling 1992/3: | 6 |
| Taxation Ruling 95/34: Employees carrying out itinerant work | 7 |
| Taxation Ruling TR 2021/1 When are deductions allowed for employees’ transport expenses? | 7 |
| Taxation Ruling TR 2024/3 Income tax: deductibility of self-education expenses incurred by an individual. | 7 |
| Taxation Ruling TR 92/3 | 4 |
| Taxation Ruling TR 92/4 | 4 |
| Taxation Ruling TR 93/30: Deductions for home office expenses | 7 |
| The ascertainment of the actual source of a given income is a practical, hard matter of fact: Nathan v FCT (1918) 25 CLR 183. | 2 |
| The ATO says in Taxation Ruling TR 2004/4 at para 9, that: | 8 |
| The ATO says in TR 2023/1 (at 65-66, and 77]: | 2 |
| The ATO says in TR 2023/1 (at 90]: | 2 |
| The ATO summarises the meaning of ‘repairs’ in TR 97/23 as follows (at paras 13 to 16): | 10 |
| The case law and the Tax Office (see, for example, Taxation Ruling TR 1998/1) have established that the following factors are relevant to deciding which method to use: | 2 |
| The Commissioner in Taxation Ruling TR 97/7 (at para 6] provides a good summary of the relevant principles established by case law on when a loss or outgoing is incurred. | 9 |
| The Commissioner’s views on the application of the decision in Myer are contained in Taxation Ruling 1992/3. The extract below is a summary of the Commissioner’s view as set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Ruling. | 4 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at para 162): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at para 164): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at para 171): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at para 172): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at para 186): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at para 187): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at paras 165 to 167): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at paras 171): | 10 |
| The following Example is extracted from TR 97/23 (at paras 177 to 179): | 10 |
| The following examples are extracted from Taxation Ruling TR 92/3 and Taxation Ruling TR 92/4. | 4 |
| The general position is that expenditure incurred after the cessation of a business is not deductible under section 8-1 because it is not incurred in carrying on a business etc (section 8-1(1)(b)) and/or is capital expenditure (and therefore denied deductibility under section 8-1(2)(a)). See, for example, Amalgamated Zinc (de Bavay’s) Ltd v FCT (1935) 54 CLR 295. | 8 |
| the lease premium is a disguised payment of additional rent: Case E34 73 ATC 282. | 5 |
| The location of the fund of profits which is distributed as a dividend is the place where those profits are made: Esquire nominees Ltd v FCT 72 ATC 4076. | 2 |
| The McCauley case is often contrasted with the decision in Stanton v FCT (1955) 92 CLR 630. | 5 |
| The meaning given to the phrase ‘value to the taxpayer’ by Bowen CJ in Donaldson v FCT 74 ATC 4192 is ‘what a prudent person in [the taxpayer’s] position would be willing to give for [the item] rather than fail to obtain [it].’ | 3 |
| The nexus test may still be satisfied even if an amount is consideration for past or future services (Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376); is paid by a 3rd party (Kelly v FCT 85 ATC 4283, Dean & Anor v FCT 97 ATC 4762); or is the product of an isolated act of service (Brent v FCT 71 ATC 4195). | 3 |
| The point of derivation usually occurs when a recoverable debt is created (ie when the taxpayer is legally entitled to an ascertainable amount as a result of having performed an agreed task (see paras 9-11 of Taxation Ruling TR 98/1)). | 2 |
| The profit made on the sale of the shares is not income. The transaction was merely an investment, not a business operation or commercial transaction.” [See Example 1 from TR 92/3.] | 4 |
| The profit of $10,000 is income and assessable under s [6-5]. It can be inferred from the objective circumstances (especially the quick sale following a rise in price and the fact that the asset had no immediate use other than as an object of trade) that profit-making was a significant purpose of Goldfinger in acquiring the gold bars. Furthermore, the substantial amounts of money involved and the nature of the asset traded lead to the conclusion that the transaction was commercial in nature.” [See Example 4 from TR 92/3.] | 4 |
| the taxpayer is in the business of receiving lease premiums: Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd v FCT 84 ATC 4043; or | 5 |
| The words ‘in gaining or producing’ are read to mean ‘in the course of gaining or producing’: Amalgamated Zinc (de Bavay’s) Ltd v FCT (1935) 54 CLR 295. With the words ‘in carrying on a business’ emphasis is often placed on the ‘carrying on’ component. | 8 |
| Ting v FCT [2015] AATA 166, and | 8 |
| TR 2024/3 at paras 81 to 85, and Example 21. | 8 |
| Vallambrosa Rubber Co Ltd v Farmer (1910) 5 TC 529. | 9 |
| Van Den Berghs Ltd v Clark [1935] AC 431 | 5 |
| Wangaratta Woolen Mills v FCT 69 ATC 4095 | 9 |
| What if the gold bars had been sold for $85,000? Consider TR 92/4. | 4 |
| What is required is that the relevant expenditure be appropriate and adapted for the ends of the business carried on for the purpose of earning assessable income: see, Ronpibon Tin NL v FC of T; Tongkah Compound NL v FC of T, supra, 78 CLR at 55-56; 4 AITR at 245; FC of T v Snowden & Willson Pty Ltd, supra, 99 CLR at 444 and 447; 7 AITR at 317 and 320. | 7 |
| What is the relationship between section 25-10 and section 8-1? The ATO provides a summary of this issue in TR 97/23 (at para 74): | 10 |
| YDXM v FCT [2022] AATA 2382 - the taxpayer’s JD costs were not deductible. | 8 |
| “Generally speaking, section 8-1 produces the same result as section 25-10 in relation to the deductibility of repair costs. Section 8-1 has its own tests for deductibility. There may be occasions, however, where section 8-1 allows a deduction for repair expenditure that would otherwise not be deductible under section 25-10. Section 8-1 might allow a deduction, for example, after a taxpayer ceases to hold, etc., property for income purposes even though section 25-10 would not allow a deduction (see Placer Pacific Management Pty Ltd v FC of T 95 ATC 4459; (1995) 31 ATR 253).” | 10 |
| “Mary Fabrica owns a factory in which the bitumen floor laid on a gravel base needs repairing. She replaces it with a new floor consisting of an underlay of concrete topped with granolith (a paving stone of crushed granite and cement). The new floor, from a functional efficiency (rather than an appearance) point of view, is not superior in quality to the old floor. The new floor performs precisely the same function as the old and is no more satisfactory. In fact, the new floor is more expensive to repair than the old. Because the new floor is not a substantial improvement, it is a repair and its cost is deductible under section 25-10: Case T75 (1968) 18 TBRD 377; (1968) 14 CTBR (NS) Case 40.” | 10 |
| “The [first] positive limb in s 8-1(1) asks a question of connection or occasion: whether the loss or outgoing is incurred in gaining or producing assessable income; “it is both sufficient and necessary that the occasion of the loss or outgoing should be found in whatever is productive of the assessable income” - see: Ronpibon Tin NL v Commissioner of Taxation [1949] HCA 15; 78 CLR 47 at 57. Mere formal connection is not sufficient. It is necessary to look to the essential character of the expenditure, rather than the subjective purpose for which an item of expenditure has been incurred: Lunney v Commissioner of Taxation [1958] HCA 5; 100 CLR 478 at 497-9. | 7 |
| “The Act must operate upon the result of a taxpayer's activities as it finds them": per Williams J, Tweddle v FC of T [1942] HCA 40…” [Emphasis added; para breaks inserted] | 7 |
| “…It is important not to confuse the question how much of the actual expenditure of the taxpayer is attributable to the gaining of assessable income with the question how much would a prudent investor have expended in gaining the assessable income. The actual expenditure in gaining the assessable income, if and when ascertained, must be accepted. The problem is to ascertain it by an apportionment. It is not for the Court or the commissioner to say how much a taxpayer ought to spend in obtaining his income, but only how much he has spent: see per Ferguson J. in Tooheys Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation (1922) 22 SR (NSW) 432, at p 440 ; per Williams J. in Tweddle v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1942] HCA 40; (1942) 7 ATD 186, at p 190 . The question of fact is therefore to make a fair appointment to each object of the companies' actual expenditure where items are not in themselves referable to one object or the other. But this must be done as a matter of fact and therefore not by this Full Court.” | 7 |
| * Zobory v FCT 95 ATC 4251 | 1 |
| *FCT v Cooke & Sherden 80 ATC 4140 | 1 |
| *Federal Coke Company Pty Ltd v FCT 77 ATC 4255. | 1 |
| *Payne v FCT 96 ATC 4407 | 1 |
| Constable v FCT (1952) 86 CLR 402 | 1 |
| Eisner v Macomber (1920) 252 US 189 - capital was compared to a tree and | 1 |
| FCT v La Rosa 2003 ATC 4510 (26-54 ITAA97 now overrides the deductibility | 1 |
| FCT v The Myer Emporium Ltd 87 ATC 4363. | 1 |
| It must be contestable and not arbitrary: MacCormick v FCT 84 ATC 4230. | 1 |