It was conceded by the Commissioner that, apart from the provisions of s. 80 (5) of the Act, the taxpayer would have been entitled to a deduction for these past losses in respect of the 1965 tax year. It has already been seen that, up to 8th August 1963, when it was wound up as insolvent, Major 8 held the three issued preference shares in the taxpayer and that these shares carried exclusive voting rights. Major 8 was also registered as the holder of two preference shares on 31st July 1965. If Major 8 held those shares beneficially, then the requirements of s. 80 (5) were met and the Commissioner could not have been otherwise than satisfied for the purposes of the subsection. The contention of counsel for the Commissioner was, however, that the company did not, and could not, establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the two preference shares held by Major 8 on 31st July 1965 were held beneficially because that company, being insolvent, had been wound-up on 8th August 1963 with the consequence that the shares registered in its name were no longer held by the company beneficially. Inland Revenue Commissioners v Olive Mill Ltd. (in liquidation) [1] was cited in support of this contention. In that case one question was whether a company was the subsidiary of another company. The test there to be applied was whether the parent company was, at the critical date, the beneficial owner of not less than three-quarters of the capital of the subsidiary company. While holding such a fraction of shares the parent company had gone into voluntary liquidation and Buckley J., relying upon observations of James L.J. and Mellish L.J. in Re Oriental Inland Steam Navigation Co.; Ex parte Scinde Railway Co. [2] , held that, upon its liquidation, the parent company had ceased to be the beneficial holder of the shares which it held in the subsidiary because, by the liquidation, the beneficial interest was taken out of the company. In that case the holding company was not insolvent and the decision does, of course, afford weighty support for the Commissioner's contention. Of even greater weight are the observations of James L.J. and Mellish L.J. in the earlier case. The relevant statutory provisions in relation to the liquidation of Major 8 are to be found in the Companies Act, 1961 Vict., ss. 227, 230 (4), 233, 244 and 247. My problem here, however, is what is meant by the words "beneficially held" in s. 80 (5) of the Act and not in any other provision, and I do find in the section itself an indication that a trustee who holds for cestuis que trust nevertheless holds beneficially for the purposes of the section Thus in s. 80 (6) there is a reference to shares "beneficially held by the trustee". I am encouraged, by what I think underlies the provisions of sub-s. (6), to think that what the section is concerned with is a continuing identity of interest such as there is, for instance, between a shareholder and the person who, upon his death, becomes his trustee, notwithstanding that he holds for beneficiaries. In the context here, I do not consider that this identity of interest ceases when a shareholder, which is a company, goes into liquidation. Even if a company, being insolvent, goes into liquidation, I find difficulty in regarding the company itself as trustee for anybody, notwithstanding that it can no longer employ its assets in its business, nor dispose of them. The assets must be held for the purpose of its own liquidation in accordance with statute. Of course its assets have to be realized by the liquidator and distributed among the company's creditors but this is done in accordance with elaborate statutory provisions for bringing about the result for which the statute provides. The matter is not left to the application of general law relating to trustees and cestuis que trust. Furthermore, the realization of the assets of a company which was insolvent may nevertheless produce a surplus and in that event contributories would be entitled to that surplus. Perhaps, indeed, the company could be given a fresh lease of life. To regard a company in liquidation as, in any strict sense, a trustee for creditors and contributories, would, I think, be inconsistent with Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Q.) v Livingston [1] . Of course a liquidator may have vested in himself the assets of the company in liquidation, including the shares, and such a step would produce an entirely different situation for the purposes of s. 80 (5); cf. In re Farrow's Bank Ltd. [2] . I have not been persuaded, however, that liquidation, of itself, deprives the company in liquidation of the beneficial holding of its shares. They are available for the purposes of its winding up.