Legh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1926] HCA 18; (1926) 38 CLR 252 (26 June 1926)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Legh and Another Appellants; and The Federal Commissioner of Taxation Respondent.

H C of A

26 June 1926

Knox C.J., Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ.

Henchman (Stumm K.C. with him), for the appellants.

Real, for the respondent.

Knox C.J.

The only question in the case is whether certain grazing selections which were held on lease from the Government of Queensland and which were the subject of the sale by the taxpayer were "tangible assets" within the meaning of sec. 16 (d) (i.) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-1923. In my opinion they clearly are tangible assets. There is no doubt that the leases are tangible in the sense that they had the real and substantial value of property which could be dealt with, just as any other chattel, such as the sheep and implements on the selections leased to the taxpayer.

Question 1 will be answered in the negative and question 2 in the affirmative. It is not necessary to answer questions 3 and 4.

Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ.

concurred.

Questions answered accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellants, Cannan & Peterson.

Solicitors for the respondent, Chambers, McNab & McNab, for Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.