Case X57

KL Beddoe SM

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Decision date: 26 June 1990.

K.L. Beddoe (Senior Member)

The question at issue is whether a surplus arising on the trade-in of a leased motor vehicle at time of leasing a new motor vehicle is assessable income.

2. The relevant statutory provisions are sec. 25(1), 26(a) and 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (``the Act'').

3. During the year ended 30 June 1982 the applicants, who are husband and wife, carried on business in partnership as cartage contractors. The respective applications of the parties were heard together. That hearing proceeded by way of a statement of agreed facts (ex. A).

4. The facts established may be summarised as follows:

5. The amount of $14,373 was treated by the respondent as being assessable income and assessed to the partnership. The applicants objected against the resulting adjustment in their share of the net income of the partnership.

6. The essence of the applicants' case is that the dealer was the person who paid out AGC and acquired the old truck as trade-in on the new truck. The applicants did not act as agents of AGC, the dealer making the arrangements direct with AGC by paying out the lease of the old truck without the applicants being involved in the transaction. For these reasons the applicants' representative distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania in
F.C. of T. v. Reynolds 81 ATC 4131; (1981) 11 A.T.R. 629, on the facts. The respondent's representative drew attention to the similar facts situation in Case S34,
85 ATC 302, a decision of Taxation Board of Review No. 3. The difference with this case being that the taxpayer in that case received debentures in the financier rather than cash in respect of the ``surplus'' on the trade-in vehicle. It is also apparent on the reading of the reasons in that case that the Board throught it was bound to follow the decision in Reynolds.

7. This is not a case of the kind dealt with in Case T54,
86 ATC 419 where the trucks there in question continued to be used in the business after the leases were paid out.

8. An unfortunate aspect of this case is the lack of documentation in regard to the trade-in of the old truck. There is a lack of evidence of this transaction and also the payout of the lease. It has not been established as to exactly what transpired in relation to the disposal of the old truck. However, I am satisfied that the applicants took no direct part in the disposal. Contrary to what Mr Peden submitted it is the case, however, that the ``profit'' on the trade-in arose in the course of the business of the partnership. It was inextricably a result of transactions entered into by the partnership as part of the business of the partnership. The only question is whether the amount was a receipt of capital or in the nature of capital.

9. The ``profit'' was, it might be thought, an expected windfall in the sense that the partners must have had a reasonable expectation that a ``profit'' could result from the transactions. Because neither partner nor the truck dealer gave evidence and the statement of agreed facts ignores the question, the Tribunal is left to speculate about facts which are within the knowledge of the applicants. The matter of whether the ``profit'' was expected is left unexplained.

ATC 430

10. I infer that the applicants must have expected that there would be a ``profit'' on the overall transaction because they must be assumed to be aware of the terms of their lease agreement on the old truck and therefore they must be assumed to know what the payout figure was. Furthermore they must be assumed to know the market value of the old truck at the relevant time. I draw those inferences from the facts as found taking into account the applicants' prior experience with the leasing of trucks. The Tribunal is entitled to draw those inferences given the failure to call the applicants as witnesses (
Jones v. Dunkel (1958-1959) 101 C.L.R. 298).

11. The ``profit'' did not arise out of the sale of a capital asset nor did it arise out of the capital structure of the business. It arose out of the lease of the old truck. The ``profit'' was not capital or of a capital nature because it had no nexus with the capital structure of the business. It did, however, have a direct nexus with the business and arose out of the operations of the business. This is not a case where the leased vehicle was acquired for the payout figure and continued to be used in the business to produce assessable income as in Case W88,
89 ATC 756. This case is on the other side of the coin so that the principle in
F.C. of T. v. Myer Emporium Ltd. 87 ATC 4363; (1987) 163 C.L.R. 199 applies. The ``profit'' arose out of the business operations of the partnership and was not a receipt of a capital nature.

12. The objection decisions under review will be affirmed.


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.