The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay?
This paper argues that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) practice of issuing opinions and taxation rulings for the guidance of taxation practitioners compiling and submitting taxation returns does not always result in greater clarity or certainty in the application of taxation laws. To illu...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/88722 |
| _version_ | 1848765072991584256 |
|---|---|
| author | Fullarton, Lex Pinto, Dale |
| author_facet | Fullarton, Lex Pinto, Dale |
| author_sort | Fullarton, Lex |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | This paper argues that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) practice of issuing opinions and
taxation rulings for the guidance of taxation practitioners compiling and submitting taxation
returns does not always result in greater clarity or certainty in the application of taxation
laws. To illustrate that argument the paper addresses the example wherein the ATO considers
all animals used in a business of primary production as trading stock. However, the word all
is not contained in s 995 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 1997); but
rather, the ATO view is based on its interpretation of the findings in the appeal case of
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade (‘Wade Case’).
However, it has been previously argued that dairy cattle, and stud stock held for breeding
purposes, should be treated as capital assets and not trading stock. Those publications
examined the Wade Case but contained a number of assumptions made due to a lack of
substantiable evidence. Subsequent investigation of the High Court appeal books and other
documentary evidence focussing on initial Commonwealth Taxation Board of Review
decision that preceded the Commissioner of Taxation’s appeal to the High Court is examined
in this paper. The paper analyses those documents and investigates background not reported
in Court authorised publications. It compares them with previous publications to reveal a
deeper insight of the case and addresses the assumptions made in those publications. It
argues that the Wade Case focussed on the assessable nature of monies received as
compensation for loss of assets. That Wade’s loss was dairy cattle is somewhat irrelevant to
the findings of the case. The paper finds that, prior to 1936, animals used as breeding stock
were of capital nature for taxation purposes. However, the legislation was repealed in 1936
which rendered all animals used in a business of primary production to be classified as
trading stock. Therefore, it concludes that while ATO view is correct, the basis supporting
the view is not. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:29:27Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-88722 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:29:27Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-887222023-07-27T03:49:31Z The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? Fullarton, Lex Pinto, Dale Trading Stock, Breeding Stock, Livestock, Business Expenditure, Capital Gains Tax, Capital Gains Tax Concessions, Income Tax Deductions, Insurance Recoveries. This paper argues that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) practice of issuing opinions and taxation rulings for the guidance of taxation practitioners compiling and submitting taxation returns does not always result in greater clarity or certainty in the application of taxation laws. To illustrate that argument the paper addresses the example wherein the ATO considers all animals used in a business of primary production as trading stock. However, the word all is not contained in s 995 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 1997); but rather, the ATO view is based on its interpretation of the findings in the appeal case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade (‘Wade Case’). However, it has been previously argued that dairy cattle, and stud stock held for breeding purposes, should be treated as capital assets and not trading stock. Those publications examined the Wade Case but contained a number of assumptions made due to a lack of substantiable evidence. Subsequent investigation of the High Court appeal books and other documentary evidence focussing on initial Commonwealth Taxation Board of Review decision that preceded the Commissioner of Taxation’s appeal to the High Court is examined in this paper. The paper analyses those documents and investigates background not reported in Court authorised publications. It compares them with previous publications to reveal a deeper insight of the case and addresses the assumptions made in those publications. It argues that the Wade Case focussed on the assessable nature of monies received as compensation for loss of assets. That Wade’s loss was dairy cattle is somewhat irrelevant to the findings of the case. The paper finds that, prior to 1936, animals used as breeding stock were of capital nature for taxation purposes. However, the legislation was repealed in 1936 which rendered all animals used in a business of primary production to be classified as trading stock. Therefore, it concludes that while ATO view is correct, the basis supporting the view is not. 2022 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/88722 English fulltext |
| spellingShingle | Trading Stock, Breeding Stock, Livestock, Business Expenditure, Capital Gains Tax, Capital Gains Tax Concessions, Income Tax Deductions, Insurance Recoveries. Fullarton, Lex Pinto, Dale The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? |
| title | The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? |
| title_full | The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? |
| title_fullStr | The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? |
| title_short | The Foundations of the Wade Case: Concrete or clay? |
| title_sort | foundations of the wade case: concrete or clay? |
| topic | Trading Stock, Breeding Stock, Livestock, Business Expenditure, Capital Gains Tax, Capital Gains Tax Concessions, Income Tax Deductions, Insurance Recoveries. |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/88722 |