The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Hunter Douglas Ltd [1983] FCA 242

Federal Court of Australia|1983-09-23|Before: Lockhart JJ, Fisher J, Lockhart J, Frauk J

Taxation - - Income Tax - Exchange loss by trading company

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G.174 of 1982

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Franki, Fisher and Lockhart JJ. DATE OF ORDER: 23 September 1983 WHERE MADE: Sydney THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is upheld.
The orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in

The assessments to income tax of Hunter Douglas Limited for

the years ended 30 June 1977 and 30 June 1978 are confirmed.

Hunter Douglas Limited pay the costs of the Commissioner of

Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia of this appeal and

of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

need ey et NL NL NI RE CON RN ONT Ramp Rep, et poet ee

NEN SOUTH HALES DISTRICT REGISTFY } No. GEVERAL DIVISTSN } ON APPEAL THE COMMI , OPAM; Franti, Fisher ard Lockharc Jd.

of Fisher J. tsho sets out the Facts very have veacned a different conclusion, f do

mest cases 39 that zn most cases the moneys were in the firse anztzunee used to discharge an overdraft liability. The effect of

this was chat the overdraft limzz was scstorced ts th: 2 sorroved money and that that borrowed woney was then alnost

tn ail cases used for ordinary day to day ezpenses such as. far

example, wages, travel allowances, petty cash, telephone exnenses and advertisinry. The Comnisszroner d2d not olace any celiance upor the fact that in the first instance thea moneys borrowed were ur arcs. In ry opinion the

rane mees used for this vurpose. in my majecity judgment in Ayca at

"Borrowing sothes than for on-lendine or fer the revaymert of funds borrovwes for on-lending, that 1s, borrowing undertaken for caoital rather than revenue scucposes, as in "AGA, 15 an excection to the general rule."

It is clear that the viev was taken that the repaywent of funds

boresoied Tor on-lending fell into the same category as borrowing

the trial Judge found and che concede that the vorceceads of all the satisfaction of outgoings of

either of a capital or a revenue had arisen out of the repayment

Peasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Frauk,

) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G.174 of 1982

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

FISHER J.: These are two appeals by the Commissioner of Taxation ("the Commissioner") against the allowance by the Supreme Court of

New South Wales of appeals by Hunter Douglas Limited ("the taxpayer")

referable to income tax assessed for the years of income ended 30 June 1977 and 30 June 1978. The taxpayer had objected to the disallowance by the Commissioner in each of these years of deductions claimed in respect of losses suffered by it on currency exchange. The appeals, both before the Supreme Court and this Court,were by consent heard

The facts are not 1n dispute and what follows is taken primarily from the reasons of the trial judge. The taxpayer is engaged in Australia in the business of development, manufacture and marketing

of window covering, home improvement, casual living, architectural

and building products. It has as its majority shareholder a company resident in the Netherlands. In 1971 the taxpayer became aware, its Group Accountant said, that 1t would require additional finance' to provide funds for the day to day running of its business because it

was proposing an expansion of its activities, which expansion entailed increased turnover. To support the increased turnover the taxpayer felt it necessary to increase its working capital, in order to avoid what was termed a cash flow or laguidaity problem during the period of its ' expansion. Although it had credit facilities with a number of banks

in Australia the taxpayer was not satisfied that these facilities would provide sufficient funds for its expansion. This expansion and zuncreasing turnover did in fact occur from 1971 up to the years in question. The taxpayer therefore made approaches seeking additional

On 1 February 1972 Banque Europeene De Credit a Moyen Terne S.A. ef Brussels ("B.E.C.") and Amsterdam - Rotterdam Bank N.V. of Amsterdam ("the Dutch Bank") entered into an agreement with the taxpayer to grant a loan of U.S. $2,000,000. The agreement recited that the loan was to be for a period of 7 years, and that the borrower accepted the loan for the purpose of financing investments in Australia. The taxpayer was entitled during the first 3 years of the loan to draw funds in multiples of U.S. $100,000 with a minimum amount of U.S. $200,000 and to repay amounts so drawn on 5 days notice. During this period a commitment fee of half of one percent per annum was payable on any part of the facility not

drawn on 1 February 1972. This commitment fee was not payable

subsequent to 1 February 1975 on which date any amount not

drawn ceased to be available. As mentioned, the loan was for a period of 7 years, later extended to 10 years, and the amount

drawn on 1 February 1975 was due for repayment no later than l May

Interest was payable six monthly calculated "on the basis of the offered quotation to first class banks for deposits in the appropriate currency for a period in accordance with the previous paragraph plus

one percent per annum", that is at an interest rate one percent higher

than banks were from time to time lending to each other.

The taxpayer was entitled to switch the currency in which the loan was drawn, and it took advantage of this option. Repayment of the loan was to be made in the currency in which it was borrowed. The remaining provisions have little if any relevance to the matters before

us, except to note that B.E,C. was the bank with which the taxpayer dealt

and that the participation of the Dutch Bank ean be disregarded for

The taxpayer drew on this loan in Swiss francs on 9 July and 9 November 1973 and in United States dollars on 19 July, 1 August and 19 August 1974. The first of these drawings was converted to Dutch guilders on 10 January 1977 and the drawing on 9 November 1973 was partly converted to Dutch guilders on 26 January 1977. The amounts drawn and the dates of repayment and the amounts repaid under B.E.C. loan were set out in a schedule before the trial judge. It is convenient to reproduce this schedule although only a portion thereof

The transactions which identify the exchange lesses under

this loan which the taxpayer claims to deduct are as follows, with

26.1.77 Balance converted to Dutch Guilders 1,115,408 Repaid 27.6.78 Australian dollars $ 439,310 . Exchange loss $201,432°"

It is apparent that throughout the term of the loan the Australia dollar depreciated against the currencies in which the loans were denominated and that upon repayments being made a larger number of Australian dollars was required to be provided than was originally

In the middle of 1973 the taxpayer became aware, as related by the Group Accountant and as found by the trial judge, that additional credit facilities were required for the purpose of providing further "working capital". These facilities were not available in Australia. In July 1974 the Dutch company which held the majority of the shares in the taxpayer entered into a loan agreement dated 3 July 1974 with Orion Term Bank Limited of the United Kingdom ("Orion"). This agreement provided that the credit facility of U.S. $6,000,000 thereunder could in certain circumstances be drawn by a sub- sidiary of the borrower either in United States dollars or any other freely convertible Euro currency. The borrower was entitled from time to time to draw against the loan in multiples of U.S. $100,000 but with a minimum amount of U.S. $300,000 and repayment was to be made in the currency in which the particular borrowing was at the time of borrowing then denominated. In this instance the rate of interest payable by the borrower was three quarters of one percent over the interbank rate quoted for dollars of the particular currency

in which the borrowing was denominated. All transactions under this

loan were 1n United States dollars which during the period of the loan appreciated as against the Australian dollar. The consequence again was that on each repayment a loss was suffered by the taxpayer which had, as an "additional borrower" under the loan agreement, drawn

the funds. The transactions between the taxpayer and Orion

were also conveniently set out in a schedule as hereunder.

Drawn 4.12.74 U.S. Dollars 1,000,000 Australian Dollars 759,301

Drawn 13.12.74 U.S. Dollars 500,000 Australian Dollars 378,530

Drawn 22.8.75 U.S. Dollars 1,000,000 Australian Dollars 779,606

For the purpose of these appeals we are concered with the draw- ung under the Orion loan of U.S. $500,000 made on 13 December 1974 and repaid on 14 December 1977 which produced an exchange loss of $64,222. The taxpayer claimed to deduct this amount of $64,222 from 1ts assessable 1uncome for the year of income ending 30 June 1978 in addition to $201,432 being the exchange loss incurred in repaying a B.E.C. loan on 27 June 1978. For the year ended 30 June 1977 an exchange loss under a B.E.C. loan of $59,084 was claimed as deductible and in each instance the Commissioner by assessment or amended assessment disallowed the claim. Upon disallowance by the Commissioner of its objections, the taxpayer required the Commissioner to treat them as appeals and forward them to the Supreme Court of

The essence of the case for the taxpayer was that by reason of the use to which the borrowed moneys were from time to time put by the taxpayer, the exchange losses were of a revenue nature and were- not losses of capital. This use and the purpose of the borrowings were described in the following terms by the Group Accountant Mr. Barlow in his affidavit.

"36. All drawdowns of the B.E.C. Loan and the Orion Loan referred to above were made on the basis of the budget projections prepared by the Company during the period in which the drawdowns were made as part of its usual financia planning. At the end of each month these six-monthly projections were prepared using the annual Budget adjusted to current and projected trends showing the anticipated cash position of the Company for a period of six months ahead. Drawdowns on the credit facilities provided by B.E.C. and Orion were made where these projections showed a cash deficiency and other local fanance was not available

All drawdowns of the B.E.C. Loan and the Orion Loan were used by the Company for the purpose of providing funds for the day-to-day running expenses of the Company's business in respect of the itemised expenses in the Schedules annexed hereto. Some of these payments may have been non-deductible to the Company but the great balance of payments consisted of the payment of amounts

which were deductible to the Company in determining its assessable income."

Each drawing after conversion into Australian dollars was paid into one or other of the current accounts which the taxpayer held

The taxpayer gave details in the schedule referred to in paragrar 37 above of all cheques drawn on and payments made from the relevant bank account during the month immediately prior to crediting the drawing and the month subsequent thereto; The trial judge found and the Commissioner was prepared to concede for the purpose of these appeais that the proceeds of all the drawings were devoted to the

satisfaction of outgoings of the taxpayer's business of a clearly

revenue nature. He further found that the monies were utilised as

working capital in the course of the taxpayer's business. It was on the basis of these findings of fact which were not disputed before us that the trial judge came to his conclusion that the exchange losses incurred on repayment of the loans were on revenue account and

The trial judge was of opinion that this conclusion was the necessary consequence of his finding that the monies were utilised as working capital in the taxpayer's business. He said:

"It (the working capital) was utilised in the activities by which the taxpayer earned its income.

Applying as best as I can the principles I have mentioned to

the purpose and nature of the transaction, I am of the view

that the borrowings in question were just as clearly required

for application in the taxpayer's business of satisfying day- to-day outgoings as was the utilisation of borrowed funds in Avco. True it is that the moneys themselves were not paid out '

as loans, but they were utilised in enabling the profits of the taxpayer to be earned."

It 1s clear that the trial judge concluded that the exchange losses were @i revenue account because of the use which the taxpayer made from time to time of drawings of the borrowed funds. He saw them as being applied directly in the payment of the day to day business expenses of the taxpayer and therefore held that the exchange loss which occurred when the particular drawing was repaid was deductible. He did not regard the drawings as a means of financing the business of the taxpayer but rather that they were utilised in enabling the profits of the taxpayer to he earned. He thus saw them as having the same characteristics as drawings

by a finance company as in the Avco case (Ayco Financial Services

Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (1982) 56 A.L.J.R. 668).

I however regard the purpose of the borrowings as being of more assistance in establishing the character of the loan transactions and the exchange losses incurred on repayments thereunder and in determining whether they are on capital or revenue account. The use which a borrower in fact makes from time to time of borrowed funds and the purposes for which it applies them is not necessarily conclusive of the purpose or character of the borrowing. This character will depend upon the purpose for which the borrowing is made e.g. to strengthen the capital structure of the company and also the use which the company makes generally of borrowed funds in its profit earning activities. The crucial question will frequently be whether the company uses the borrowed funds to finance its profit earning activities or as an integral part of such

It is my opinion that two matters support the finding that the borrowings here were on capital account and that the exchange losses were not detachable and thus on revenue account. The purpose of the borrowings was to finance the expansion of the taxpayer's business and to provide the additional working capital which this expansion required. Thus the borrowing transactions themselves were not on revenue account. Furthermore the funds borrowed were not used in or as an integral part of the profit making activities of the taxpayer i.e. as part of the process by which it operated to obtain its regular returns but in the financing of such activities. In particular they were undertaken with a view to expanding such

These borrowings may in fact have been used to pay the day to day expenses, or in reimbursing a bank account from which such expenses were paid. However in my opinion this does not determine conclusively the part that borrowed funds played in the profit making activities of the taxpayer or the true character of the

loan transactions. The words of Mason J. in the CAGA case

(Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of

Taxation (1976) 137 C.L.R. 373) are in point. He said at page 384:

"No doubt the effect of the loan was to enable the taxpayer to divert other funds into the more profitable channels of its finance business, but this does not affect the character of the loan transaction itself."

The evidence of the Group Accountant in cross-examination is of relevance. I refer in particular to the following questions

"Q. Would it be correct to say that during the period from 1971 through to 1975, in fact the company's business did expand?

Q. And would it be correct to say that in making those forecasts in 1971, the company was taking account of the

A. Forecast expansion, to the extent of increased turnover.

Q. And as part of that increased turnover, it was felt necessary to increase the working capital?

Q. And 1t was recognised that unless that could be done, there might be cash flow problems?

Q. Now again, you say that it became obvious, based on the company's budgets and cash forecasts, that the company would

require additional credit facilities for the purpose of providing working capital?

Q. And again is 1t right to say that that forecast was based on a continued anticipated expansion of the

Q. And on the basis of that, I think in July 1974 the arrangement was made whereunder the Orion finance could be used by the company?

Q. So again would it be right to say that these forecasts were looking at working capital on a

The trial judge treated the use which the taxpayer made of the borrowed funds as equivalent to the use which the finance company made of such funds in the Avco case. It 1s my opinion

that the use which the taxpayer on the one hand and Avco on the

other made of borrowed funds was very different and does not warrant

Counsel for the Commissioner distinguished, in my opinion correctly, the Avco case on the ground that the High Court there had under consideration the activities of a finance company which used its borrowings directly in the course of its profit earning activities as though they were trading stock. In the present matter the borrowings and their repayment, counsel contended, were not on revenue account because they were not part of the profit making process. Reliance was placed on the classic statement of the

difference between outgoings on capital and revenue account of

Dixon J. (as he then was) in Sun Newspapers Limited v Federal

Commissioner of Taxation (1938) 61 C.L.R. 337 at page 359 where he

contrasted the strengthening of "the business entity, structure or

organization set up or established for the earning of profit" with the process by which the organisation operated to obtain regular

In my opinion the High Court in Avco was at pains to dintinguish

the position of a finance company from a trading or manufacturing company and to reiterate that in the latter instance unless the repayment was of itself on revenue account and thus deductible, the exchange loss was not deductible. In this case the taxpayer dad not argue that the borrowings themselves were on revenue account 1.e. the receipt being assessable income and the repayment an allowable deduction. Rather it was said that the exchange loss

was detachable from the capital sum repaid and was on revenue account.

The words of Mason J. in the CAGA case at page 383, 1f adapted to apply to an exchange loss, indicate the essential features of an exchange gain or loss. He said: "The exchange gain was 1n reality a saving or reduction in the amount of Australian currency equivalent which the taxpayer required to repay its indebtedness. In essence it was a windfall advantage stemming from a reduction in a liability to repay a borrowing of capital." In this matter the exchange loss was an increase in the amount of Australian currency required to repay the horrowing. It was a

windfall disadvantage stemming from an increase in the liability

The usual situation is that the treatment of an exchange gain or loss for income tax purposes depends upon the character of the payment i.e. whether it is on capital or revenue account and thus whether or not it is an allowable deduction for such purposes. As Gibbs C.J. said in the Avco case at page 671,

"It does seem true to say, at least in general, that if

deduction, then any increase or decrease in that amount

caused by a variation in the rate of exchange is to be

taken into account as an allowable deduction or as assessable income."

This proposition has particular application when trading stock is acquired and also doubtless services. However on repayment of a loan the general position 1s that the exchange gain or loss is on capital account. But this is not always the case (see the Avco case per Gibbs C.J. at page 671 and Mason, Aickin and Wilson J.J. at page 675). As the Chief Justice said on that page it will depend upon "The direct application of the tests formulated in

Sun Newspapers Limited and Associated Newspapers Ltd. v Federal

Commissioner of Taxation". It was the application of these tests which led the High Court to the conclusion in the CAGA case that

the foreign exchange gain there was not on revenue account and not assessable and in the Avco case that the gains or losses were on revenue account and thus assessable or deductible, as the case may be. Counsel for the Commissioner urged on appeal that these tests be applied in this matter. It was necessary, he said, for the Court

to determine whether the borrowing of money by the taxpayer

was part of its day to day profit earning process. If it was not, this would determine the purpose of the borrowing and the fact that

The fact that the taxpayer was not a finance company borrowing

for the purpose of lending to its customers nor were its borrowings linked with the purchase of trading stock means that it can not

bring itself within two apparent exceptions to the general principle that exchange losses on repayment of loans are on capital account. Thus its situation can be distinguished from cases in which

trading stock is bought in foreign currency which appreciates

before payment is made. These cases are referred to in the CAGA case by Mason J, at page 385 and Gibbs J. in the Avco case at page 670

Two additional cases are Thiess Toyota Pty. Ltd. vy Commissioner

of Taxation [1978] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 723 and Federal Commissioner of

Taxation v Cadbury-Fry-Pascall (Australia) Ltd.1979 A.T.c. 4,346. In respect to each of these cases it can be said, in the words of

Jenkinson J. in the Cadbury-Fry~Pascall case at page 4,351, that the

repayment was "in substance part of the regular outlay of the respondent (taxpayer) for raw materials regularly acquired by it".

In that case, from which the trial judge said he gained much assistance, the repayments in reduction of a loan were essentially "part of the regular outlay" of the taxpayer for raw materials regularly required md thus made on revenue account. It is significant that the court's attention was there directed to the true nature

of the repayment and this accords with the approach of Gibbs C.J,

Gibbs C.J. at page 671 of Avco referred with approval

to the decision of Meares J. in the Thiess Toyota case when

illustrating the difficulty in accepting that exchange losses or

gains on borrowings are always on capital account. He said:

"The difficulty of adhering to the view that exchange

gains and losses resulting from the repayment of borrowed money must always be of a capital nature is made manifest

by comparing the case in which a taxpayer who regularly

buys trading stock has ninety days after each delivery

in which to pay the supplier, with the case in which the taxpayer arranges with his bank to pay the supplier each

time a delivery is made and has himself ninety days in

which to pay the bank. The authorities cited show that

a gain or loss resulting from a change in the rate of ' exchange during the ninety days would be on revenue account in the former case. It would be anomalous if the gain or loss was on capital account in the latter case. In Thiess Toyota Pty. Ltd. v Commissioner of Taxation [1978]

1 N.S..W.L.R. 723, where a company which sold motor vehicles paid for the imported vehicles with moneys advanced by a

bank in the form of letters of credit in favour of the . exporter 1n Japan, and the company had ninety days to reimburse the bank, it was held by Meares J. that the arrangements with the bank were all part of a transaction relating directly to, and having the purpose of, the purchase of trading stock and the exchange gain was on revenue

The fact that a finance company may in respect of its borrowings be in a different position from a manufacturing or trading company 1s made very clear by the High Court in the CAGA case and
the Avco case. In the CAGA case because the principal purpose of the borrowings was to strengthen the taxpayer's business structure and was not part of the process by which it operated to obtain regular returns the High Court held that the borrowings were on capital account and the exchange gain was assessable. By way of contrast in the Avco case the borrowings in question were held to have been undertaken in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's income-earning business and the resultant exchange losses or gains were deductible or assessable. [In that case the High Court went to lengths to indicate the special position of a finance company borrowing as part -

of its day to day operations for the purpose of re-lending,

Gibbs C.J. referred to the circumstances of a finance company on page 672 when he said:

"Where a taxpayer carries on the business of borrowing

and lending money, the moreys used for that purpose are analagous to trading stock - the taxpayer in effect deals in the money. Exchange gains and losses, regularly and frequently made and incurred, in the course of making repayments of borrowed money which is used by a taxpayer in making loans in the course of its finance business are outgoings made in the day to day conduct of the business and for the purpose of carrying on the business as a going concern... The exchange losses were in my opinion losses on revenue account, and of course the gains have the same character."

Mason, Aickin and Wilson J.J. acknowledged the different situation of a finance company on two occasions in their reasons for judgment. On page 675 they said:

"The majority judgments, as well as the dissenting judgment, in Tip Top Tailors, and the speech of Lord Macmillan in Montreal Coke recognize, rightly in our opinion, that the borrowing of money and the repayment of loans by a finance company in the ordinary course of its business stand in a different situation from borrowings by a company not

undertaken in the ordinary course of its income-earning business... There 1s therefore an important and material difference between borrowing by a finance company in the

ordinary course of its business and borrowing by a manufacturing or trading company."

"With respect to those who think otherwise, the proposition that exchange variations affecting the repayment of loans

in foreign currencies are always an affair of capital in

the case of a finance company is supported neither by principle nor by authority... Like the borrowing transactions with which they are associated, the foreign exchange transactions are entered into by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of its business and form an integral part of that business. The gains and losses made and sustained in these transactions are therefore made in the ordinary course of

carrying on that business, the more so because the gains and losses are an ordinary incident of transactions of this kind."

The positiom is different where the company 1s not a finance

company but a trading or manufacturing company which incurs

exchange losses or gains otherwise than through the purchase of trading stock. Here the losses or gains will in the ordinary course be on capital account. For them to be on revenue account it is necessary for the taxpayer to establish that the additional expenditure to meet exchange losses was expenditure incurred in the process of producing its income, and in the words of Mason, Aickin

and Wilson J.J. in Avco set out above, as an integral part of that

process. It is not sufficient, with all respect to the learned trial judge, to rely upon the finding that in fact the borrowed monies

were used to satisfy day to day outgoings. The borrowings in such

a case are prima facie an addition to the capital employed in the

This 1s made clear by the joint judgment in Avco at page 675

when citing the passage from the judgment of Latham C.J. in the Texas case at page 428 where he said that "... 'no exchange... should be allowed' in respect of 'remittances sent by the Company to America in repayment of moneys lent''..." Mason, Aickin and Wilson J.J. went on to say "Latham C.J.'s observation, ... was not directed to the situation of a finance company. It reflects the view

that a loan and the repayment of a loan are generally an affair of capital. And so they are."

The joint judgment then cited from the judgment of Menzies J. in Caltex at p.251: "Borrowing money to carry on business or to pay liabilities iuncurred in carrying on business is prima facie to

increase the capital employed in the business... Even more on

point in the present matter are the remarks of Lord Macmillan in

Montreal Coke and Manufacturing Company v Minister of National Revenue [1944] A.C. 126 at p.134.

"It 2s not the business of either of the appellants

to engage in financial operations... Of course, like other business people, they must have capital to enable them to conduct their enterprises, but their financial arrangements are quite distinct from the activities hy which they earn their income."

The joint judgment commented: "The consequence was, 1n Montreal Coke, to use the words of Lord Macmillan, that'expenditure incurred in relation

to the financing of their businesses is not... expenditure incurred in the earning of their income'."

In my opinion this reference to expenditure incurred in relation to the financing of a business indicates the correct conclusion on the facts of this matter. Stated in terms of the above extracts from

the joint judgment in Avco the correct finding is that the borrowing

of the moneys and the repayment thereof in this matter was expenditure

in relation to the financing of the taxpayer's business hy augmenting

1ts working capital. It was money borrowed to pay liabilities incurred

in carrying on and expanding the business, as part and parcel of the taxpayer's financial as opposed to its trading activities. The borrowings and their exchange losses were not an integral part

of the ordinary operation of the taxpayer's business, They were borrowings arranged for special purposes, on only two occasions,

and 1n consequence the obligation to make repayments was not an obligation regularly or frequently incurred, The borrowings resulted in relatively few transactions over the period from 1972 to 1978

and were of an exceptional nature rather than normal day to day occurrences. The evidence discloses 8 repayments in approximately

5 years on the B.E.C. loan and 3 repayments in about 4 years on the

Orion loan. In my opinion the borrowings and repayments were not

In my opinion the two appeals should be allowed and the Commissioner's assessments restored. The respondent taxpayer

pages ate a true copy of the Reasons 'or . Judgment of Mr Justice Fisher. . an a RR OT TI -

t oO tae] 'ct iy Gi re wn '3 nd re} Ea QQ ja ~ sf do i -1 'O w tJ

ON_APPEAT, PROM THE SUSREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH HALES BETHEEN: THE COMMISSTONEP

LOCPHART gf. These appeals raise the Familiar vuestion whethec

iw ib | ol oO Ur mn w in ro) c bay bh iu by i) Q fen '¢ » io) ia) By a} aa) i6 @ i & a t+ i] Wy fe)

Outstarding overseas loans arc ocersesninding seductions of ine liabriity to vervay thet. Exchange losses are ain reality an addition to the amount cf Australian currency which a borrower reduires to resay his forsign incebtecress Similarciv an exchange gain is a

By< In ry 0) fe br1 ty fuOo rs oO ny e7) iv) -ct by fo ca wa Pe iB) c ie) Su ¢: u iw p by' Me a) 14, {ns c n cr a pr) cr rm Q te a ao r tp

excnangs rate will also be an aliovabie deducricn or

The ouzschase of Foreign currency by an Australian taxpayer to

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (255 paragraphs)

Cited By (1)