Industry Research & Development Board v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 979
The statutory criteria for 'research and development activities' under s 73B(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) require particular activities, not merely projects as a whole, to be systematic, investigative or experimental, involving innovation or technical risk, and carried on for the statutory purposes. The Court held the AAT correctly applied these criteria to the contested activities. The Construction activity was held to be a core research and development activity involving innovation and technical risk, and Dewatering and Blasting/Mining were supporting activities. The appeal was dismissed because no error of law was demonstrated in the AAT’s application of the law to...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 July 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['research and Development Tax Concessions' "interpretation of 'research and Development Activities'" "meaning of 'innovation' and 'technical Risk'"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether certain activities constituted 'research and development activities' under s 73B(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)" 'Proper application of statutory definitions to specific activities as opposed to entire projects' "Meaning of 'innovation' and 'technical risk' within the statutory framework"]
Ratio Decidendi
The statutory criteria for 'research and development activities' under s 73B(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) require particular activities, not merely projects as a whole, to be systematic, investigative or experimental, involving innovation or technical risk, and carried on for the statutory purposes. The Court held the AAT correctly applied these criteria to the contested activities. The Construction activity was held to be a core research and development activity involving innovation and technical risk, and Dewatering and Blasting/Mining were supporting activities. The appeal was dismissed because no error of law was demonstrated in the AAT’s application of the law to...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment