Home | © 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners


Russell v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] FCAFC 10.  04.02.11.

per Dowsett J:

[21] The word “enterprise” is of some significance in the operation of art 7. The meaning of that word, in the context of an agreement with Switzerland, was considered by the High Court in Thiel v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338, especially at 344-5 per Mason CJ, Brennan and Gaudron JJ, at 350-352 per Dawson J and at 357-359 per McHugh J.

It seems that the word has a broad meaning. As Mason CJ, Brennan and Gaudron JJ said at 344:

... an activity, as well as a framework within which such activities are engaged in, may constitute an “enterprise” for the purposes of the agreement.

[22] In other words, a business, in the usual sense, will be an enterprise. However an activity, which might not generally be treated as a business because of lack of continuity, may also be an enterprise; certainly if the activity amounts to an adventure in the nature of trade: Edwards v Bairstow (1956) AC 1; Minister of National Revenue v Tara Exploration and Development Co Ltd (1972) 28 DLR (3d) 135; Thiel at 352 per Dawson J; at 360 per McHugh J.

Previous page: Employment to the nature of which the disease was due     Next page: Equity

© 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample