© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2005] FCA 1166
Federal Court of Australia
2005-08-24
Stone J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant's contention has the result that although it makes a profit from its dealing in (ie value is added to) the units, it claims a refund: it "double dips" a reduction in the margin and its input tax credit claim: Sale proceeds 39,361,704 Land costs (4,000,000) Non-land costs (excl GST ) (29,928,325) Margin 5,433,379 GST on margin 493,944
Taxable supplies to trust 26,400,000 Input tax credits (2,400,000)
GST refund claimed (1,906,056)
Moreover, if the Applicant's contention were correct, the margin would be based on what was actually the consideration for the non-land supplies, not the notional ex-GST cost: Sale proceeds 39,361,704 Land costs (4,000,000) Non-land costs (incl GST) (32,328,325) Margin 3,033,379 GST on margin 275,762
Taxable supplies to trust 26,400,000 Input tax credits (2,400,000)
GST refund claimed (2,124,238)
Sterling Guardian Pty Limited
Commissioner of Taxation
Sterling Guardian Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] FCA 1166
(2001) 109 FCR 416
(1997) 187 CLR 384
(1981) 147 CLR 297
(1972) 46 ALJR 559
(2004) 205 ALR 1
(2004) 213 ALR 795
(1998) 158 ALR 98