In August's situation, the court looked at a deal involving a big piece of land called the 'Hume Property'. The owner bought it with the plan to make money by developing, renting, and selling it. Later, they sold it without developing or splitting it. They argued that because they abandoned the plan to make money, the sale wasn't part of the plan anymore.
But the court disagreed, saying the situation wasn't like a previous case called Kratzmann's case. In Kratzmann's case, the plan to make money didn't involve selling the land, but here it did. Also, the fact that the land was sold without being leased or split didn't change that it was still part of the money-making plan.
So, it's hard to use Kratzmann's case as a precedent here because the situations are different. Another case, Rosgoe Pty Ltd v FCT, did apply Kratzmann's case successfully, but that case's value as a precedent is limited because it was based on specific facts provided in a Private Binding Ruling, not a general ruling.
In short, it's tricky to rely on Kratzmann's case here because the circumstances are not the same.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tax Ideas Accountants & Advisers at
+61 2 83181545 or book an appointment using our live calendar.