Calder v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] FCAFC 254

Calder v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] FCAFC 254

The dominant purpose of Mr Calder in entering into the Tea Tree oil plantation scheme, assessed objectively by reference to the factors in s 177D(b), was to obtain a tax benefit. The trial judge’s evaluative findings were open on the evidence and did not disclose appellate error. The features of the scheme, including prepayment, borrowing, and structure, supported the finding of a tax-dominated purpose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['income Tax' 'deductions' 'tax Avoidance' 'pt IVA Income Tax Assessment Act 1936' 'dominant Purpose of Tax Benefit' 'commercial Purpose Versus Tax Purpose']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Calder's dominant purpose in entering into the Tea Tree oil plantation scheme was to obtain a tax benefit within the meaning of Pt IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)" "Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that Mr Calder's purpose was primarily tax-related rather than commercial"]

Ratio Decidendi

The dominant purpose of Mr Calder in entering into the Tea Tree oil plantation scheme, assessed objectively by reference to the factors in s 177D(b), was to obtain a tax benefit. The trial judge’s evaluative findings were open on the evidence and did not disclose appellate error. The features of the scheme, including prepayment, borrowing, and structure, supported the finding of a tax-dominated purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]