Case A56
Judges:AM Donovan Ch
JD Davies M
GR Thompson M
Court:
No. 2 Board of Review
A. M. Donovan (Chairman): I do not find it necessary to consider the point on which my colleague, Mr. Thompson, turns his decision for, in my view, the taxpayer's claim fails for another reason.
2. The disputed deductions relate to a mill situated within the boundaries of the taxpayer's manufacturing plant and workmen's cottages adjacent thereto. The taxpayer can only succeed if, inter alia, these improvements are situated ``in a forest'' within the meaning of sec. 124JA.
3. I do not desire to review in detail the evidence given by two expert foresters, but it amounted to no more than this - that the improvements, although not immediately surrounded by forest, are nevertheless situated within a large area of forest of which only a relatively small area is cleared. This evidence is in conformity with the appearance of the general locality gained from an inspection made by the Board.
4. It seems to me that whether the improvements in question are located ``in a forest'' or otherwise does not depend entirely on their actual location or on a comparison of the areas of wooded and cleared land. There have to be taken into account, additionally, such matters as the permanence of the clearing, the relevance of cleared areas to each other and the extent of their dissociation from the forest as such.
5. The taxpayer's manufacturing plant and the improvements with which we are concerned are situated on a bank of a large river some 3 miles from the nearest town. No doubt the whole area in question was once heavily wooded, and a very considerable area is still in its virgin state. The narrow valley through which the river flows has obviously long been cleared of trees in parts, although those parts are to an extent discontinuous. The cleared areas have been settled, given over to farming, the establishment of the town of substantial proportions and utilised for macadamised Government roads and a public railway.
6. Having regard to the matters to which I have referred, I am of the opinion that the taxpayer's property with which we are concerned is rightly to be regarded as being in the cleared and settled part of the river valley. It is not, in my view, ``in a forest'' and, indeed, were it not for counsel's able argument, it would not have occurred to me that it could be so described.
7. I would uphold the Commissioner's decisions.
Disclaimer and notice of copyright applicable to materials provided by CCH Australia Limited
CCH Australia Limited ("CCH") believes that all information which it has provided in this site is accurate and reliable, but gives no warranty of accuracy or reliability of such information to the reader or any third party. The information provided by CCH is not legal or professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, no responsibility for damages or loss arising in any way out of or in connection with or incidental to any errors or omissions in any information provided is accepted by CCH or by persons involved in the preparation and provision of the information, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, from the use of or results obtained from information supplied by CCH.
The information provided by CCH includes history notes and other value-added features which are subject to CCH copyright. No CCH material may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy for your personal use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In particular, the reproduction of any part of the information for sale or incorporation in any product intended for sale is prohibited without CCH's prior consent.
