The Wade Case: An Analysis

Australian Taxation Office Pronouncements: Why Tax Advisers Need to Exercise Caution

“…Instead, the reported decision supported the argument that some animals held in a business of primary production, such as horses and dogs used for mustering, stud stock used for breeding, or animals used for the production of animal products, such as milk or wool, are of a capital nature and should be treated accordingly for taxation purposes. 10 Subsequently, the authors' research looked beyond the reported decision of the Wade Case 11 and found that hearings before the Commonwealth Taxation Board of Review and an earlier case heard by the High Court provide evidence and background that is not presented in the authorised case reports. 12 They suggest that the reasons given by Dixon and Fullagar JJ for their decision may have been taken out of context by the ATO.…”

“…Without supporting documentation other than the report published in the Commonwealth Law Reports it could not be concluded whether their Honours were aware of those cases, or whether they had been omitted from either the evidence or the reported decisions. 13 Therefore, the authors argue that, while the ATO considers that the main decision of the High Court was focused on animals held in a business of primary production, and from this infers that all animals are held as trading stock regardless of their role in that business, the Wade Case was focused on the assessment of monies paid to a taxpayer in compensation for a loss. Wade had been compensated for the loss and replacement of his assets, and that is the primary matter addressed by the court.…”