J. Rowe & Son Pty. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Judges: Barwick CJMcTiernan J
Menzies J
Gibbs J
Court:
High Court (Full Court)
Gibbs J.: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother Menzies and need not repeat what he has said in relation to this appeal. However, since in some respects I do not find it necessary to go quite as far as he has gone in his judgment, I would briefly state my reasons for agreeing with his conclusion.
The appellant, a trader, sold goods on terms and the consideration for each sale comprised two components, one representing the sale price and one representing an additional consideration for the deferring of payment of the price. The expert evidence, which my brother
Walsh
accepted, showed that, from an accountancy and commercial point of view, it is unusual to bring into the accounts of a trader making sales on terms only the payments received or receivable in the year in question, and that to do so does not reveal the true position of the trading, whereas the Commissioner's method, of bringing into account, at the time when a contract of sale was made, the whole of the component representing the additional consideration unless received or receivable during the income year, is in conformity with general accounting principles. The appellant contended that the evidence of the experts in accountancy showed a basis for arriving at profits but not a basis for determining the amount of ``gross income derived'' within sec.25 of the
Income Tax Assessment Act
1936, as amended (
Cth
). However, for the reasons given by my brother
Menzies,
I agree that for taxation, as well as for business, purposes income of a trading business is derived when it is earned and the receipt of what is earned is not necessary to bring the proceeds of sales into account. When the Act gives no directions on the point, the question when income is earned, and the method of accounting to be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the income, depend upon business conceptions and the principles and practices of accountancy (see
The Commissioner of Taxes (South Australia) v. The Executor Trustee and Agency Company of Australia Limited (Carden's case)
(1938) 63 C.L.R. 108 at pp. 152-6 and
Arthur Murray (N.S.W.) Pty. Ltd.
v.
F.C. of T.
(1965) 114 C.L.R. 314
at p. 318
). The method adopted should be that which is ``calculated to give a substantially correct reflex of the taxpayer's true income'':
Carden's case,
at p. 154.
ATC 4161
My brother Walsh regarded, and was on the evidence entitled to regard, the method adopted by the Commissioner as providing, in the circumstances of the case, an appropriate basis for determining the true income of the appellant and, in my opinion, there is nothing in the Act to preclude the adoption of that method.
These considerations are enough to dispose also of the alternative argument of the appellant, that income should be treated as being derived as and when it emerged, so that so much of the income from a transaction is to be treated as derived in a particular year as is contained within the instalments received and receivable during that year. Profit may be ascertained on an emerging basis in appropriate cases arising under sec.26(a) of the Act but I need not consider whether the income of a trader who sells on terms may ever appropriately be determined on such a basis, because the evidence did not show that the method suggested by the appellant would produce a satisfactory result or would lead to a more accurate determination of the appellant's income in the present case than the method adopted by the Commissioner. The conclusions of my brother Walsh as to the effect of that evidence are, in my opinion, correct.
I would dismiss the appeal.
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.