Product Ruling

PR 2002/50

Income tax: Howcroft Estate Project No. 2

This version is no longer current. Please follow this link to view the current version.

• Please note that the PDF version is the authorised version of this ruling.
  This document incorporates revisions made since original publication. View its history and amending notices, if applicable.

FOI status:

May be released

Preamble

No guarantee of commercial success

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) does not sanction or guarantee this product. Further, we give no assurance that the product is commercially viable, that charges are reasonable, appropriate or represent industry norms, or that projected returns will be achieved or are reasonably based.

Participants must form their own view about the commercial and financial viability of the product. This involves a consideration of important issues such as whether projected returns are realistic, the 'track record' of the management, the level of fees in comparison to similar products, how this product fits an existing portfolio, etc. We recommend a financial (or other) adviser be consulted for such information.

This Product Ruling provides certainty for participants by confirming that the tax benefits set out below in the Ruling part of this document are available provided that the arrangement is carried out in accordance with the information we have been given and have described below in the Arrangement part of this document.

If the arrangement is not carried out as described below, participants lose the protection of this Product Ruling. Participants may wish to seek assurances from the promoter that the arrangement has been carried out as described in this Product Ruling.

Participants should be aware that the ATO will be undertaking review activities to confirm the arrangement has been implemented as described below and to ensure that the participants in the arrangement include in their income tax returns income derived in those future years.

Terms of Use of this Product Ruling

This Product Ruling has been given on the basis that the person(s) who applied for the Ruling, and their associates, will abide by strict terms of use. Any failure to comply with the terms of use may lead to the withdrawal of this Ruling.

What this Product Ruling is about

1. This Ruling sets out the Commissioner's opinion on the way in which the 'tax laws' identified below apply to the defined class of persons, who take part in the arrangement to which this Ruling relates. In this Ruling this arrangement is sometimes referred to as the Howcroft Estate Project No. 2, or simply as 'the Project'.

Tax law(s)

2. The tax law dealt with in this Ruling is:

•

Division 35 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ('ITAA 1997');

Goods and Services Tax

3. In this Ruling all fees and expenditure referred to include Goods and Services Tax ('GST') where applicable. In order for an entity (referred to in this Ruling as a Grower) to be entitled to claim input tax credits for the GST included in its expenditure, it must be registered or required to be registered for GST and hold a valid tax invoice.

Changes in the Law

4. The Government is currently evaluating further changes to the tax system in response to the Ralph Review of Business Taxation and continuing business tax reform is expected to be implemented over a number of years. Although this Ruling deals with the taxation legislation enacted at the time it was issued, later amendments may impact on this Ruling. Any such changes will take precedence over the application of this Ruling and, to that extent, this Ruling will be superseded.

5. Taxpayers participating in the Project are advised to confirm with their taxation adviser that changes in the law have not affected this Product Ruling since it was issued.

Note to promoters and advisers

6. Product Rulings were introduced for the purpose of providing certainty about tax consequences for participants in projects such as this. In keeping with that intention, the Tax Office suggests that promoters and advisers ensure that participants are fully informed of any legislative changes after the Ruling is issued.

Class of persons

7. The class of persons to whom this Ruling applies is those persons who were accepted into the project between May 1999 and June 1999 for Phase A and May 2000 and June 2000 for Phase B. They will have a purpose of staying in the arrangement until it is completed (i.e., being a party to the relevant Agreements until their term expires) and deriving assessable income from this involvement. In this Ruling these persons are referred to as 'Growers'.

8. The class of persons to whom this Ruling applies does not include persons who have terminated or who intend to terminate their involvement in the arrangement prior to its completion, or who otherwise do not intend to derive assessable income from the Project.

Qualifications

9. The Commissioner rules on the precise arrangement identified in the Ruling. If the arrangement described in the Ruling is materially different from the arrangement that is actually carried out, the Ruling has no binding effect on the Commissioner. The Ruling will be withdrawn or modified.

10. A Product Ruling may only be reproduced in its entirety. Extracts may not be reproduced. As each Product Ruling is copyright, apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no Product Ruling may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 1920, Canberra ACT 2601.

Date of effect

11. This Ruling applies prospectively from 24 April 2002 for Growers who, between May 1999 and June 1999 (Phase A) and May 2000 and June 2000 (Phase B), entered into the specified arrangement that is set out below. However, the Ruling does not apply to taxpayers to the extent that it conflicts with the terms of settlement of a dispute agreed to before the date of issue of the Ruling (see paragraphs 21 and 22 of Taxation Ruling TR 92/20).

12. If a taxpayer has a more favourable private ruling (which is legally binding), the taxpayer can rely on that private ruling if the income year to which it relates has ended or has commenced but not yet ended. However if the arrangement covered by the private ruling has not commenced, and the income year to which it relates has not yet commenced, this Ruling applies to the taxpayer to the extent of the inconsistency only (see Taxation Determination TD 93/34).

Withdrawal

13. This Product Ruling is withdrawn and ceases to have effect after 30 June 2003. The Ruling continues to apply, even following its withdrawal, in respect of the tax laws ruled upon, to all persons within the specified class who entered into the specified arrangement that is set out below between May 1999 and June 1999 for Phase A and between May 2000 and June 2000 for Phase B. This is subject to there being no material difference in the arrangement or in the persons' involvement in the arrangement.

Arrangement

14. The arrangement that is the subject of this Ruling is described below. This arrangement incorporates the following documents:

•

Application for product ruling from Specific Vineyard Management Ltd (SVM)('Responsible Entity') dated 11 December 2001;

•

Howcroft Estate Project No. 2 Prospectus dated 31 May 1999;

•

Howcroft Estate Project No. 2 Supplementary Prospectus dated 20 April 2000;

•

Constitution for the Howcroft Estate Project No. 2 dated 27 April 1999

•

Supplementary Constitution for the Howcroft Estate Project No. 2 dated 31 May 1999

•

Constitution for the Howcroft Estate Unit Trust No. 2(HEUT2) ('Landowning Trust') dated 27 April 1999

•

Vineyard Agreement between Australian Rural Group Limited ('HEUT2 Custodian') and the Grower;

•

Development and Maintenance Agreement between Specific Vineyard Management Ltd ('Responsible Entity') and the Grower;

•

Grape Sale Agreement between Brian McGuigan Wines Ltd ('Buyer'), Specific Vineyard Management Ltd ('Responsible Entity') and the Grower;

•

Land Preparation Agreement dated 30 June 1999 between Specific Vineyard Management Ltd ('Responsible Entity'), and Australian Rural Group Limited ('HEUT2 Custodian');

•

Development and Management Agreement dated 25 June 1999 between Specific Vineyard Management Ltd ('Responsible Entity'), and Brian McGuigan Wines Ltd ('Subcontractor').

15. The documents highlighted are those that the Growers enter into. There are no other agreements, whether formal or informal, and whether or not legally enforceable, which a Grower, or an associate of the Grower will be a party to that are part of the arrangement to which this Ruling applies.

16. All Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) requirements are, or will be, complied with for the term of the agreements. The effect of the agreements may be summarised as follows:

Overview

17. The salient features and effect of these arrangements are summarised below:

18. The Prospectus invited Growers to participate in two specific interests. The first was a right to participate in a project called 'Howcroft Estate Project No. 2'. The second was a right to purchase units in the HEUT2, the Project's landowning trust. The right to purchase units in HEUT2 could be taken up by the Grower, or by an associate of the Grower.

19. Grower's Interests were divided into two classes. Growers who applied prior to 30 June 1998 were allocated Phase A allotments, to be planted in 1999. Growers who applied subsequent to 30 June 1998 were allocated Phase B allotments to be planted in 2000.

20. Growers participating in the project entered into a Vineyard Agreement, a Development and Maintenance Agreement and a Grape Sale Agreement for the Project. These Agreements are set out in schedules to the Project Constitution. The Vineyard Agreement gives a Grower a licence over an identifiable area of land called a Vineyard Lot until the Project is terminated pursuant to the provisions of the Project Constitution. Each Vineyard Lot is approximately 0.4 hectares in size and has water rights attached.

21. The Project is being conducted at a site known as the Howcroft II Vineyard, located at Mundulla near Bordertown on the South Australian / Victorian border. A Grower participated in the Project by:

•

subscribing or procuring an associate to subscribe for 5,000 units (one landowners' interest) in HEUT2 at $1 each (total $5,000);

•

entering into a 'Vineyard Agreement' with the Landowning Trust in respect of a Vineyard Lot (0.4 hectares) for the period to 30 June, 2014;

•

entering into a 'Development and Maintenance Agreement' under which the Responsible Entity agrees to cultivate and maintain the Vineyard Lot, to harvest and sell the Grapes produced for the term of the Project; and

•

entering into a 'Grape Sale Agreement' that relates to the sale of grapes from the time of the first commercial harvest to 30 June 2014. The Buyer has agreed to purchase all of the grapes produced from the Grapevines grown on the Vineyard Lot, for the term of the Grape Sale Agreement.

22. A Grower entering into the Vineyard Agreement was liable to pay the following amounts for a right to use the Vineyard Lot for the cultivation of grapevines:

•

for the period to 30 June 1999, $nil;

•

for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2003, $600 per annum;

•

for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 $729 per annum; and

•

for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 and for each year of the remainder of the agreement, the fee for the previous year increased by 5 percent.

23. A Phase A Grower entering into the Development and Maintenance Agreement was liable to pay the following amounts in respect of each Vineyard Lot:

•

Development fee for the period to 30 June 1999 of $3,600 payable on application;

•

Development fee for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 of $3,360;

•

Management fee for the period to 30 June 1999 of $300;

•

Management fee for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001 of $300 per annum;

•

Management fee for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2014 equal to 3% of the gross proceeds from the sale of the Grower's grapes;

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 of $4,080;

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 of $3,000;

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 of $3,000; and

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 of $2,640, and for each year thereafter until 30 June 2014 the fee for the previous year indexed to increases in the Consumer Price Index (all groups Melbourne) subject to a maximum increase in any year of 5 percent.

24. A Phase B Grower entering into the Development and Maintenance Agreement was liable to pay the following amounts in respect of each Vineyard Lot:

•

Development fee for the period to 30 June 2000 of $3,600 payable on application;

•

Development fee for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 of $3,360;

•

Management fee for the period to 30 June 2000 of $500;

•

Management fee for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2002 of $500 per annum;

•

Management fee for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2014 equal to 3% of the gross proceeds from the sale of the Grower's grapes;

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 of $4,080;

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 of $3,000;

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 of $3,000; and

•

Maintenance fee for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2014 equal to that fee calculated in respect of Phase A Grower Vineyard Lots.

25. Each Grower's Vineyard Lot was allocated by SVM upon acceptance and planted with approximately 800 grapevines in 1999 or 2000 for Phase A and Phase B Growers respectively. But for the 12 month timing difference between Phase A and Phase B Vineyard Lots, there is no variation between individual Growers' Vineyard Lots within the Project or between rights attached thereto, except that the Responsible Entity was entitled to plant different varieties of grapevines trees on individual Vineyard Lots based on overall Project objectives.

26. Projected returns are outlined on pages 48 to 53 of the Prospectus, and are subject to the inherent risks of primary production and the commercial risks of a long term venture of cultivating, growing, harvesting, and sale of grapes. The risks associated with the project have been outlined in the Prospectus.

Units in HEUT 2

27. Under the Project, a Grower or their associate could purchase a minimum of one parcel of 5,000 units of $1 each in HEUT2. The Prospectus offered 520 parcels of 5000 units, which was subsequently reduced under the Supplementary Prospectus to 465 parcels. Growers who purchased units agreed to be bound by the terms of the Trust Deed. HEUT2 derives income from licence fees and possibly may eventually derive capital gains from the sale of Project land. There is an expectation that Growers will derive distributions. However the taxation consequences of any subsequent dealing or disposal of units in HEUT2 do not form part of this Ruling.

Vineyard Agreement

28. The Landowning Trust leases the Project land to the Project Custodian, which subleases the land back to the Landowning Trust. The Landowning Trust entered into licence agreements with the Growers.

29. Growers entering the Vineyard Agreement pay licence fees (clause 7) for a licence to use and occupy the Vineyard Lot for the limited purposes of planting, growing, harvesting and selling grapes for a period ending on 30 June 2014. A licence relates to an identifiable area of land and the Grower has the option of appointing an agent under a Development and Maintenance Agreement to perform the licensed activities (clause 5.2).

30. The licence fee was payable on allocation of the Vineyard Lot for the period to 30 June 1999 and then payable annually until the end of the agreement.

Development and Maintenance Agreement

31. Growers enter into an Agreement appointing SVM, as Responsible Entity, to manage the Grower's interest in the Project on the terms and conditions set out in the Development and Maintenance Agreement. A summary of the key aspects of this Agreement is found in the Prospectus at pages 89 to 91.

32. Growers enter into the Agreement until the year ended 30 June 2014 (clause 3) unless the Agreement is terminated earlier. The Agreement may be terminated by either the Responsible Entity or the Grower under specific conditions (clause 12). Upon termination of the Agreement by the Responsible Entity, the Grower's interest in the Project may be sold to meet any unpaid fees (clause 17.4 of the Project Constitution). The arrangement ruled on does not include the circumstance where the Development and Maintenance Agreement is terminated or the Responsible Entity is otherwise removed. In such circumstance, this Ruling will cease to have effect. The Development and Maintenance Agreement covers two periods, namely, the first 4 years (development period) and the remaining period to 30 June 2014 (maintenance period). The duties to be performed by the Responsible Entity specific to the development period are listed at clause 4 of the Agreement and include:

•

supply of approximately 800 vines per Vineyard Lot for the Grower;

•

installing irrigation works;

•

erecting trellis;

•

undertaking drainage and soil loss prevention works;

•

preplanting preparation and the planting of the grape vines;

•

tending the Grower's Vineyard Lot and, if necessary, tending the vine rootlings;

•

eradicating weeds and repairing damage caused by the Responsible Entity; and

•

undertaking certain preventative measures concerning land degradation.

33. After these initial duties have been performed, SVM must provide continuing maintenance of the Vineyard Lots (clause 5). Provision is made for the Grower to elect to undertake certain ongoing maintenance tasks such as the weeding of the Vineyard Lot (clause 7).

34. The Responsible Entity may employ agents, contractors, professional advisers and other consultants to perform its obligations under the Agreement (clause 10).

The Project Constitution

35. The Constitution for the Project sets out the terms and conditions under which the Responsible Entity agrees to act for the Growers and to manage the Project. The Responsible Entity will keep a register of Growers (clause 14). Growers are entitled to assign their interests in certain circumstances (clause 18). The Development and Maintenance Agreement is attached to the Constitution (schedule 6) and will be executed on behalf of the Grower following them signing the Application and a Power of Attorney Form in the Prospectus. Growers are bound by the Constitution by virtue of their participation in the Project.

Compliance Plan

36. The Responsible Entity has prepared a Compliance Plan in accordance with the Corporations Act. Under the Compliance Plan, a Compliance Committee will monitor to what extent the Responsible Entity meets it's obligations as the Responsible entity and the rights of the Growers are protected.

Application Form

37. Growers enter into the arrangement through the completion of an Application Form together with the payment of application monies. The Application Form appoints SVM to act as Attorney for the Grower for the purposes of entering into the Vineyard Agreement, Development and Maintenance Agreement and Grape Sale Agreement. The Application Form also provides for the issue of HEUT2 units to the Grower or an associate of the Grower.

Minimum Subscription

38. The minimum number of Vineyard Lots required for the commencement of the Project was one hundred (100) Vineyard Lots.

Finance

39. Growers are entitled to fund their participation in the Project themselves, or borrow from an independent lender.

40. This Ruling does not apply if a Grower enters into a finance agreement that includes or has any of the following features:

•

there are split loan features of a type referred to in Taxation Ruling TR 98/22;

•

there are indemnity arrangements or other collateral agreements in relation to the loan designed to limit the borrower's risk;

•

'additional benefits' are or will be granted to the borrowers for the purpose of section 82KL or the funding arrangements transform the Project into a 'scheme' to which Part IVA may apply;

•

the loan or rate of interest is non-arm's length;

•

repayments of the principal and payments of interest are linked to the derivation of income from the Project;

•

the funds borrowed, or any part of them, will not be available for the conduct of the Project but will be transferred (by any mechanism, directly or indirectly) back to the lender, or any associate of the lender;

•

lenders do not have the capacity under the loan agreement, or a genuine intention, to take legal action against defaulting borrowers; or

•

entities associated with the Project are involved or become involved in the provision of finance to Growers for the Project.

Ruling

Division 35 - Deferral of losses from non-commercial business activities

Section 35-55 - Commissioner's discretion

41. For a Grower who is an individual and who entered the Project between May 1999 and June 1999 for Phase A and May 2000 and June 2000 for Phase B, the rule in section 35-10 may apply to the business activity comprised by their involvement in this Project. Under paragraph 35-55(1)(b) the Commissioner has decided for the income year ended 30 June 2001 for Phase A and for the income years ended 30 June 2001 to 30 June 2002 for Phase B, that the rule in section 35-10 does not apply to this business activity. This is provided that the Project has been, and continues during the remainder of the term of the Project to be, carried on in a manner that is not materially different to that described in the arrangement that is set out in paragraphs 14 to 40 of this Product Ruling.

42. This exercise of the discretion in subsection 35-55(1) will not be required where, for any year in question:

•

the 'exception' in subsection 35-10(4) applies (see paragraph 48 in the Explanations part of this ruling, below); or

•

a Grower's business activity satisfies one of the tests in sections 35-30, 35-35, 35-40 or 35-45; or

•

the Grower's business activity produces assessable income for an income year greater than the deductions attributable to it forthat year (apart from the operation of subsection 35-10(2)).

43. Where, the 'exception' in subsection 35-10(4) applies, the Grower's business activity satisfies one of the tests, or the discretion in subsection 35-55(1) is exercised, section 35-10 will not apply. This means that a Grower will not be required to defer any excess of deductions attributable to their business activity in excess of any assessable income from that activity, i.e., any 'loss' from that activity, to a later year. Instead, this 'loss' can be offset against other assessable income for the year in which it arises.

44. Growers are reminded of the important statement made on Page 1 of this Product Ruling. Therefore, Growers should not see the Commissioner's decision to exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(b) as an indication that the Tax Office sanctions or guarantees the Project or the product to be commercially viable. An assessment of the Project or the product from this perspective has not been made.

Explanations

Division 35 - Deferral of losses from non-commercial business activities

45. Division 35 applies to losses from certain business activities for the income year ended 30 June 2001 and subsequent years. Under the rule in subsection 35-10(2) a deduction for a loss made by an individual (including an individual in a general law partnership) from certain business activities will not be taken into account in an income year unless:

•

the exception in subsection 35-10(4) applies;

•

one of four tests in sections 35-30, 35-35, 35-40 or 35-45 is met; or

•

if one of the tests is not satisfied, the Commissioner exercises the discretion in section 35-55.

46. Generally, a loss in this context is, for the income year in question, the excess of an individual taxpayer's allowable deductions attributable to the business activity over that taxpayer's assessable income from the business activity.

47. Losses that cannot be taken into account in a particular year of income, because of subsection 35-10(2), can be applied to the extent of future profits from the business activity, or are deferred until one of the tests is passed, the discretion is exercised, or the exception applies.

48. For the purposes of applying the Division 35, subsection 35-10(3) allows taxpayers to group business activities 'of a similar kind'. Under subsection 35-10(4), there is an 'exception' to the general rule in subsection 35-10(2) where the loss is from a primary production business and the individual taxpayer has other assessable income for the income year from sources not related to that activity, of less than $40,000 (excluding any net capital gain). As both subsections relate to the individual circumstances of Growers who participate in the Project they are beyond the scope of this Product Ruling and are not considered further.

49. In broad terms, the tests require:

(a)

at least $20,000 of assessable income in that year from the business activity (section 35-30);

(b)

the business activity results in a taxation profit in 3 of the past 5 income years (including the current year)(section 35-35);

(c)

at least $500,000 of real property, or an interest in real property, (excluding any private dwelling) is used on a continuing basis in carrying on the business activity in that year (section 35-40); or

(d)

at least $100,000 of certain other assets (excluding cars, motor cycles and similar vehicles) are used on a continuing basis in carrying on the business activity in that year (section 35-45).

50. A Grower who was accepted into and who has participated in the Project since May 1999 for phase A and May 2000 for Phase B are carrying on a business activity that is subject to these provisions.

51. Information provided with the application for this Product Ruling and additional information provided since, indicates that a Grower who acquired the minimum allocation of 1 interest in the Project is unlikely to have their business activity pass one of the tests until the income year ended 30 June 2001 for Phase A and 30 June 2002 for Phase B. Growers who acquired more than 1 interest in the Project may however, find that their activity meets one of the tests in an earlier income year.

52. Prior to this time, unless the Commissioner exercises an arm of the discretion under paragraphs 35-55(1)(a) or (b), the rule in subsection 35-10(2) will apply to defer to a future income year any loss that arises from the Grower's participation in the Project.

53. The first arm of the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(a) relates to 'special circumstances' applicable to the business activity, and has no relevance for the purposes of this Product Ruling. However, the second arm of the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(b) may be exercised by the Commissioner where:

(i)

the business activity has started to be carried on; and

(ii)

because of its nature, it has not yet met one of the tests set out in Division 35; and

(iii)

there is an expectation that the business activity of an individual taxpayer will either pass one of the tests or produce a taxation profit within a period that is commercially viable for the industry concerned.

54. The information provided by the applicant indicates that a Grower who acquired the minimum allocation of 1 interest in the Project is expected to be carrying on a business activity that will either pass one of the tests, or produce a taxation profit, for the year ended 30 June 2002 for Phase A and 30 June 2003 for Phase B. The Commissioner has decided for such a Grower that it would be reasonable to exercise the second arm of the discretion until the year ended 30 June 2001 for Phase A and 30 June 2002 for Phase B.

55. The applicant has stated that the business activity comprised by a Grower's involvement in this Project has started to be carried on, and will continue to be carried on in a manner that is not materially different to that described in the arrangement that is set out in paragraphs 14 to 40 of this Product Ruling. If, however, the Project is not carried on during the income years specified above (see paragraph 41), in the manner described in the arrangement, this Ruling may be affected. Specifically, the decision in relation to paragraph 35-55(1)(b), that it would be unreasonable that the loss deferral rule in subsection 35-10(2) not apply, may be affected, because the Ruling no longer applies (see paragraph 9). Growers may need to apply for private rulings on how paragraph 35-55(1)(b) will apply in such changed circumstances.

56. In deciding to exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(b) the Commissioner has relied upon:

•

the report of the independent Viticultural Consultant and additional expert or scientific evidence provided with the application by the Responsible Entity;

•

the binding Grape Sale Agreement with Brian McGuigan Wines Limited for the sale of the grapes setting out prices that realistically reflect the existing market and/or the projected market in the geographical region where the grapes are grown.

Detailed contents list

57. Below is a detailed contents list for this Product Ruling:

Commissioner of Taxation
24 April 2002

Not previously released in draft form

References

ATO references:
NO T2001/000909

Related Rulings/Determinations:

PR 1999/95
TR 92/1
TR 97/16
TR 92/20
TR 98/22
TD 93/34

Subject References:
product rulings
public rulings
non-commercial losses
primary production expenses

Legislative References:
ITAA 1936 Part IVA
ITAA 1936 82KL
ITAA 1997 Div 35
ITAA 1997 35-10
ITAA 1997 35-10(2)
ITAA 1997 35-10(3)
ITAA 1997 35-10(4)
ITAA 1997 35-30
ITAA 1997 35-35
ITAA 1997 35-40
ITAA 1997 35-45
ITAA 1997 35-55
ITAA 1997 35-55(1)
ITAA 1997 35-55(1)(a)
ITAA 1997 35-55(1)(b)
Copyright Act 1968