RESOURCE CAPITAL FUND III LP v FC of T

Judges:
Edmonds J

Court:
Federal Court, Sydney

MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [2013] FCA 363

Judgment date: 26 April 2013

Edmonds J

INTRODUCTION

1. On 26 July 2007, the applicant ("RCF") sold 52.5 million fully paid ordinary shares in St Barbara Mines Ltd (now called St Barbara Limited) ("SBM"), comprising 5.68% of the capital of SBM which it had acquired in March 2006 as part of a larger parcel of 100 million such shares comprising 11.95% of the capital of SBM.

2. On 29 January 2008, RCF sold its remaining shares in SBM.

3. The total gain on the two sales was $58,250,000 less transaction costs of $612,109 (it is not in contest that the assessment referred to in [4] below is excessive at least to the extent that those costs were not deducted from the gain assessed).

4. On or about 1 November 2010, the respondent ("Commissioner") issued RCF with a notice of assessment ("the Assessment") under s 167 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) ("the 1936 Act") for the year of income ended 30 June 2008 ("year of income"). The Assessment included a net capital gain in the sum of $58,250,000.

5. On or about the same date, the Commissioner issued RCF with a notice of assessment of administrative penalty in the sum of $13,106,250, being 75% of the tax liability ("Penalty Assessment").

6. RCF lodged objections against the Assessment and the Penalty Assessment.

7. The Commissioner allowed in part RCF's objection against the Penalty Assessment by reducing the administrative penalty from 75% to 25%, being the sum of $4,368,750, on the ground that RCF was co-operative and had "a reasonably arguable position".

8. On 12 May 2011, RCF's objection against the Assessment was deemed, by the effluxion of time, to have been disallowed by operation of s 14ZYA(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ("the TAA").

9. By amended application dated 8 July 2011, RCF applied to this Court by way of appeal against the Commissioner's deemed objection decision. For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that RCF's appeal should be allowed and the Commissioner's deemed objection decision set aside.

PRIMARY FACTS RELEVANT TO ISSUES IN DISPUTE

10. The primary facts relevant to the issues in dispute are uncontroversial.

11. RCF is a limited partnership formed in the Cayman Islands under the Exempted Limited Partnership Law 1991 (revised in 1997 and again in 2001) of that jurisdiction pursuant to a written partnership agreement dated 17 January 2003. Its general partner is Resource Capital Associates III LP, a limited partnership formed in the Cayman Islands, and its affairs are managed by RCF Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, in Denver, United States of America ("US"). More than 97% of the contributed capital of RCF is held by US residents, principally funds and institutions.

12. At all material times, RCF was comprised of one general partner and 61 or 62 limited partners. No limited partner had greater than 8.5% interest in the contributed capital of RCF.

13. Neither RCF nor any of the partners in RCF were resident in Australia at any time during the year of income.

14. SBM at all relevant times conducted a gold mining enterprise on mining tenements in Australia owned by it, using plant, equipment, mining information and other assets held by it. The mining tenements were, and the other assets were not, "taxable Australian real property" ("TARP") of SBM for the purposes of Div 855 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) ("the 1997 Act"). The value of the several assets of SBM is the subject of expert evidence expressing views which, in many respects, differ to a greater or lesser extent.

15. At all relevant times, SBM's fully paid ordinary shares had been listed on the Australian Securities Exchange ("ASX"). The

ATC 14813

key assets of SBM in the year of income were its Southern Cross and Leonora operations, both of which are located in Western Australia. SBM's Southern Cross operations primarily comprised the Marvel Loch underground mine. SBM's Leonora operations primarily comprised the Gwalia underground mine.

RCF'S TAX STATUS UNDER AUSTRALIAN DOMESTIC LAW

16. Division 5A of Pt III (ss 94A-94Y) of the 1936 Act was inserted by Act No 227 of 1992 and provided for certain limited partnerships to be treated as companies for tax purposes for the 1995-1996 and later years of income.

17. In the year of income, RCF was a limited partnership as defined in para (a) of the definition of that term in s 995-1(1) of the 1997 Act.

18. In the year of income, RCF was a corporate limited partnership within the meaning of s 94D(1) of the 1936 Act, and was not excluded as such by the provisions of s 94D(2) or s 94D(5).

19. In the year of income, s 94J of the 1936 Act had the effect that, with certain limited exceptions, references to a "company" in the 1936 Act and the 1997 Act (together "the Assessment Acts") were taken to include RCF, as a corporate limited partnership.

20. In the year of income, ss 94T and 94U of the 1936 Act respectively had the effect that, for the purposes of the Assessment Acts, RCF was not a resident of Australia and was incorporated in the Cayman Islands under the laws in force in that jurisdiction.

RCF'S TAX STATUS UNDER US DOMESTIC LAW

21. A partnership is "domestic" for US tax purposes if it is created or organised in the US or under US or state law: US Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 7701(a)(4). A partnership that is not domestic is foreign: IRC § 7701(a)(5). RCF is a foreign partnership for US tax purposes because it was organised under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

22. For US tax purposes a partnership, whether resident in the US for US tax purposes or not, is a "fiscally transparent" or "flow-through" entity not subject to tax; the liability for US tax, if any, on the income of the partnership falls on the partners: IRC §701.

23. Under US law, each partner of RCF derives its proportionate share of the income of the partnership. Liability for US tax, if any, falls on the partner or, if the partner is a "fiscally transparent" or "flow through" entity, the US owner or owners of the partner, unless the person in question is a tax-exempt organisation.

24. The gain on RCF's sale of the SBM shares was taxable, or exempt, in the US in the hands of the limited partners. It was not taxable in the hands of RCF because of RCF's "fiscally transparent" or "flow-through" status. While RCF is not treated as a taxpayer for US tax purposes, the gain on the sale was disclosed in the partnership returns filed by RCF in the US.

COMPARATIVE STATUS OF RCF UNDER DOMESTIC LAW

25. Thus, while a corporate limited partnership, such as RCF, is treated as a separate taxable entity for Australian tax purposes, irrespective of whether it is a resident of Australia for Australian income tax purposes or not, such a partnership is treated as fiscally transparent or flow-through for US tax purposes, and again irrespective of whether it is resident in the US for US tax purposes or not.

26. These treatment differences create various difficulties when it comes to applying the provisions of double tax treaties to partnerships. These difficulties are analysed in the report adopted by the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 20 January 1999 entitled: "The Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to Partnerships", the conclusions from which have been incorporated in the OECD Commentary on Art 1 and certain other provisions of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2005 ("OECD Model") (see [39] below).

ISSUES

27. The issues in this appeal are:

FIRST ISSUE: THE TREATY ISSUE

28. It may assist the reader to understand what this issue involves and the relevance of the matters taken into account in the process of reasoning in reaching the conclusion I have, if, at the outset, I shortly state the two alternatives contended for: the Commissioner contends that under the Convention, as under Australia's domestic law, RCF is the relevant entity for the purposes of assessing the gain made on the sale of the SBM shares; while RCF contends that under the Convention the relevant entities, if any, are the limited partners resident in the US.

The Convention

29. The primary purpose of a tax treaty is to promote international trade by removing obstacles that double taxation presents to the development of economic relations between the countries: Richard E Andersen, Purpose of Income Tax Treaties in Analysis of United States Income Tax Treaties (2011) at Ch 1.01. The purpose of the Convention is to avoid the double taxation of the income of residents of the US and Australia.

30. Australia and the US entered into the Convention on 6 August 1982. According to the Treasury department (US) technical explanation of the Convention ("Technical Explanation 1983"), the Convention was negotiated on the basis of the US Model Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital, published in May 1977, the revised US Model published in draft form in June 1981, and the 1977 OECD Model. The Convention replaced a prior income tax convention between Australia and the US dated 14 May 1953 ("the 1953 Convention").

31. In 2001, Australia and the US signed a Protocol amending the Convention ("the 2001 Protocol"). According to the Department of the treasury (US) technical explanation of the 2001 Protocol ("Technical Explanation 2001"), negotiations took into account the US Treasury Department's current tax treaty policy, the then current (1996) US Model, the Australian Model Tax Convention, the 2000 version of the OECD Model, and recent tax treaties concluded by both countries.

32. The Australian taxes to which the Convention applies include the Australian income tax including tax on capital gains: Art 2(1)(b)(i).

The Agreements Act

33. The Convention was given the force of law in Australia by ss 6 and 6AA of the Agreements Act.

34. Subsection 4(1) of the Agreements Act provides that, subject to subs (2), the Assessment Acts are incorporated and read as one with the Agreements Act.

35. Subsection 4(2) of the Agreements Act provides:

The provisions of this Act have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with those provisions contained in the Assessment Act (other than Part IVA of that Act) or in an Act imposing Australian tax.

Relevant Provisions of the Convention

36. Article 1 relevantly provides:

ARTICLE 1

Personal scope

  • (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Convention, this Convention shall apply to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States.

37. As a general matter only residents of the US or Australia may claim the benefits of the Convention.

38. Apart from the introductory exception, Art 1(1) of the Convention corresponds with Art 1 of the OECD Model.

39. The OECD Commentary on Art 1 of the OECD Model, under the heading: Application of the Convention to partnerships, relevantly reads:

40. Article 3 relevantly provides:

ARTICLE 3

General definitions

  • (1) For the purposes of this Convention, unless the context otherwise requires:
    • (a) the term "person" includes an individual, an estate of a deceased individual, a trust, a partnership, a company and any other body of persons;

41. It is common ground that RCF is a person for the purposes of the Convention.

42. Article 4 relevantly provides:

ARTICLE 4

Residence

  • (1) For the purposes of this Convention:
    • …
    • (b) a person is a resident of the United States if the person is:
      • (i) a United States corporation;
      • (ii) …; or
      • (iii) any other person (except a corporation or unincorporated entity treated as a corporation for United States tax purposes) resident in the United States for purposes of its tax , provided that, in relation to any income derived by a partnership, an estate of a deceased individual or a trust, such person shall not be treated as a resident of the United States except to the extent that the income is subject to United States tax as the income of a resident, either in its hands or in the hands of a partner or beneficiary, or, if that income is exempt from United States tax, is exempt other than because such person, partner or beneficiary is not a United States person according to United States law relating to United States tax.

      (Emphasis added)

43. Under Art II(1)(g) of the 1953 Convention, a partnership created or organised

ATC 14818

in or under the laws of the US (a US domestic partnership) was a resident of the US for the purposes of the 1953 Convention whether or not the partners were liable to US tax on the income of the partnership. If the partners in the US domestic partnership were foreign companies (i.e., incorporated outside the United States) and the partnership income was not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business carried on in the US, neither the partnership (because it was fiscally transparent) nor the partners would be liable to US tax on the partnership income, but because the partnership was a resident of the US for the purposes of the 1953 Convention, it was entitled to the benefits of the 1953 Convention vis-à-vis Australian source income. The negotiators of the Convention were conscious of this anomaly when drafting Art 4(1)(b)(iii); thus, under the Convention, even a US domestic partnership will only be a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention to the extent that the income of the partnership is subject to US tax in the hands of a partner or, if that income is exempt from US tax, is exempt other than because such partner is not a US person according to US law relating to US tax.

44. Article 7 relevantly provides:

ARTICLE 7

Business Profits

  • (1) The business profits of an enterprise of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the business profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to that permanent establishment.
  • …
  • (6) Where business profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other Articles of this Convention, then the provisions of those Articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this Article.
  • …
  • (9) Where:
    • (a) a resident of one of the Contracting States is beneficially entitled, whether directly or through one or more interposed fiscally transparent entities, to a share of the business profits of an enterprise carried on in the other Contracting State by the fiscally transparent entity, (or, in the case of a trust, by the trustee of the trust estate); and
    • (b) in relation to that enterprise, that fiscally transparent entity (or trustee) would, in accordance with the principles of Article 5 (Permanent Establishment), have a permanent establishment in that other State, that enterprise carried on by that fiscally transparent entity (or trustee) shall be deemed to be a business carried on in the other State by that resident through a permanent establishment situated in that other State and that share of business profits shall be attributed to that permanent establishment.

45. Article 13 relevantly provides:

ARTICLE 13

Alienation of property

  • (1) Income or gains derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States from the alienation or disposition of real property situated in the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.
  • (2) For the purposes of this Article:
    • …
    • (b) the term "real property", in the case of Australia, shall have the meaning which it has under the laws in force from time to time in Australia and, without limiting the foregoing, includes:
      • (i) real property referred to in Article 6;
      • (ii) shares or comparable interests in a company, the assets of which consist wholly or principally of real property situated in Australia; and
      • (iii) an interest in a partnership, trust or estate of a deceased individual, the assets of which consist wholly or principally of real property situated in Australia.
    • …
  • (7) Except as provided in the preceding paragraphs of this Article, each Contracting

    ATC 14819

    State may tax capital gains in accordance with the provisions of its domestic law; and
  • (8) For the purposes of this Article, real property consisting of shares in a company referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(ii), and interests in a partnership, trust or estate referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(iii), shall be deemed to be situated in Australia.

General Principles of Interpretation of Double Tax Treaties

46. In
Virgin Holdings SA v Commissioner of Taxation (2008) 70 ATR 478 I set out (at [19] to [24]) the general principles for the interpretation of double tax treaties to which Australia is a party, as enunciated by the High Court in cases such as
Thiel v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338; by McHugh J (with Brennan CJ's agreement) in
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225; and embraced by full courts of this Court in cases such as
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597 and
McDermott Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 142 FCR 134.

47. I said:

48.

ATC 14821

In my view, nothing has occurred in the intervening period between then and now to put these principles in doubt. Nevertheless, the Commissioner, in his written submissions, cast doubt on the reliance that could be placed on supplementary materials (referred to in Art 32 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1974] ATS 2 ("Vienna Convention")) such as the commentary issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) on its Model Taxation Convention, by reference to what was said by Dowsett J in
Russell v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2011) 190 FCR 449 at [25] to [31] where his Honour relevantly said:

49. This passage from his Honour's reasons has to be read and understood in context. It was written in response to the appellant's criticism of the approach of the primary judge below: that the primary judge relied on the OECD commentary to its model agreement to override the terms of the Agreements Act, including the New Zealand Agreement. Dowsett J did not accept that criticism and while suggesting that care needed to be taken in referring to such supplementary materials, concluded that the primary judge used the supplementary materials to support his analysis as to the effect of the wording of the New Zealand Agreement. Dowsett J proceeded to focus upon the terms of the Agreements Act, including the New Zealand Agreement, more out of deference to the appellant's criticism of the primary judge; but certainly not out of rejection of the principles of interpretation arising out of Thiel.

50. This was subsequently confirmed by a Full Court in
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd (2011) 193 FCR 149 at [119] and [120]:

51. Finally, the Commissioner referred to what was said by the plurality in
Minister for Home Affairs v Zentai (2012) 289 ALR 644. At [65] their Honours said:

The meaning of the limitation set out in Art 2.5(a) [of the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary] is to be ascertained by the application of ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.101

The authorities referred to at footnote 101 -
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [69] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ and
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27 at [47] per Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ - state what the task of the ordinary principles of statutory construction involve: the clear meaning of the text to prevail over historical considerations and extrinsic materials (see too more recently
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Ltd [2012] HCA 55 at [39]), but where necessary, assistance can be drawn by consideration of the context which includes general purpose and policy of a provision, in particular the mischief it is seeking to remedy.

52. However, I do not regard this sentence on a stand-alone basis as a rejection of the general principles of interpretation of double tax treaties coming out of Thiel, the other cases referred to in [46] above and the passage from the Full Court's reasons in SNF extracted in [50] above.

53. Support for this view is to be found in the reasons of the Chief Justice. French CJ came to the same conclusion as the plurality by recourse to the correct principles of construction starting with Arts 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention and referring to the principles embraced by Dawson J and McHugh J (with whom Brennan CJ agreed) in Applicant A. In Zentai, the Chief Justice said at [19]:

The rules of interpretation in Arts 31 and 32 have been said to represent customary international law [Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (
Indonesia v Malaysia) (Judgement)
[2002] ICJ Rep 625 at 645]. Whether or not they are or have been adopted as part of the common law of Australia, those rules are generally consistent with the common law. [As to the relationship between customary international law and the common law, see
Chow Hung Ching v R (1948) 77 CLR 449 at 462 per Latham CJ, 471 per Starke J, cf at 477 per Dixon J.] The common law requires treaties to be construed "unconstrained by technical rules of English law, or by English legal precedent, but on broad principles of general acceptation". [
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Gamlen Chemical Co A/Asia Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 142 at 159 per Mason and Wilson JJ, Gibbs J agreeing at 149, … Aickin J agreeing at 168, citing
James Buchanan & Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd [1978] AC 141 at 152 … per Lord Wilberforce. See also
Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 413 per Gaudron

ATC 14823

J.] That was the approach adopted by Dawson J in
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [(1997) 190 CLR 225 at 240;
[1997] HCA 4] who observed that:

Article 31 plainly precludes the adoption of a literal construction which would defeat the object or purpose of a treaty and be inconsistent with the context in which the words being construed appear.

McHugh J, with whom Brennan CJ agreed in this respect [
(1997) 190 CLR 225 at 231], said the correct approach to Art 31 was "a single combined operation which takes into account all relevant facts as a whole." [
(1997) 190 CLR 225 at 254, citing Judge Zekia in
Golder v United Kingdom (1975) 1 EHRR 524 at 544. See also
The Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 at 177 per Murphy J;
Riley v The Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 1 at 15 per Deane J;
Thiel v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338 at 349 per Dawson J, 356-357 per McHugh J;
Victoria v The Commonwealth (Industrial Relations Act Case) (1996) 187 CLR 416 at 545-546 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ;
Oates v Attorney-General (Cth) (2003) 214 CLR 496 at 512 [43] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ.] It is that approach which is appropriate to the construction of Art 2.5(a) of the treaty.

Consideration and Analysis

54. Various underlying issues were said to be relevant to the resolution of the first issue - the treaty issue - and were the subject of extensive submissions from both parties in the form of reports from H David Rosenbloom, Professor of Taxation and the Director of the International Tax Program at New York University School of Law on behalf of RCF, and David T Moldenhauer, an adjunct professor of international tax in the Graduate Tax Program of New York Law School on behalf of the Commissioner. These reports were originally intended to be put into evidence but the parties agreed that they were inadmissible, as they contained application evidence which could not be disentangled from evidence about the law in the US. The parties agreed that the Court could have regard to the reports as or by way of submission and that relevant underlying statutory and other material referred to in the reports would be tendered.

Is RCF a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention?

55. One underlying issue on which the parties parted company was whether RCF was a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention. The Commissioner submitted that ultimately it does not matter in the present case if RCF is a resident within the meaning of Art 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Convention or not, a proposition with which, for reasons developed later, I agree (see [68] below). On the other hand, the Commissioner's reasons underlying the proposition, namely, because the relevant taxing article in the Convention (Art 13) gives Australia unlimited taxing rights must, for reasons which I will also develop later, be rejected (see [63] below).

56. The Commissioner's "preferred" position on this issue is that RCF was a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention in the year of income. To this end, the Commissioner submitted that Art 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Convention should not be read as literally requiring that partnerships must be recognised by the US as a resident separate from the requirement that income of the partnership must be taxed in the hands of a US resident partner, as such a requirement would defeat the clear intention of the Convention to recognise partnerships as being capable of being "residents" for treaty purposes. The reason for this, according to the Commissioner, is because there is no principle of US tax law that a partnership's residence is based on where it is organised.

57. RCF submitted that it was neither appropriate nor permissible to ignore the words "resident in the United States for purposes of its tax" in Art 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Convention and that there was a dual requirement to be satisfied before a partnership could qualify as a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention: first, the partnership had to be resident in the US for the purposes of its tax;

ATC 14824

and second, the income of the partnership had to be subject to US tax as the income of a resident partner, or be exempt from US tax in the hands of a resident partner.

58. RCF submitted that it would fail the first requirement: being a foreign partnership, it was not resident in the US for the purposes of its tax notwithstanding that all or substantially all of the partners were resident in the US and liable to or exempt from US tax on their distributive shares of such income. The basis of RCF's submission that it was not resident in the US for the purposes of its tax went like this: the domestic/foreign classification test for partnerships is the same as it is for companies: IRC §§ 7701(a)(4), 7701(a)(5). The Report of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Convention states, in summarising Art 4 (see [42] above), that "a company is resident in the United States if it is organised in the United States". RCF submitted that the implication of this statement, in context, is that a company that is not organised in the US is not resident in the US. Since partnerships and corporations are subject to the same Internal Revenue Code classification test for whether they are domestic or foreign, RCF further submitted that there is no reason for partnerships to be subject to a different test than corporations for whether they are resident in the US. On this basis, RCF would not be resident in the US for US tax purposes because it was organised under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

59. RCF's submission is certainly consistent with the position which prevailed under the 1953 Convention (see [43] above); only a partnership created or organised in or under the laws of the US qualified as a resident of the US for the purposes of the 1953 Convention. Implicit in that was that such a partnership was resident in the US for US tax purposes and a foreign partnership, such as RCF, was not.

60. Having regard to this last mentioned consideration, I am of the view that RCF's submissions on this issue are to be preferred to the Commissioner's: first, that Art 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Convention does impose a dual requirement to be satisfied before a partnership can qualify as a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention; second, that RCF is not resident in the US for the purposes of its tax; and third, it follows that RCF is not a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention.

Does Art 13 of the Convention apply to authorise Australia to tax the gain to RCF?

61. Article 13 authorises taxation of "gains derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States from the alienation or disposition of real property situated in the other Contracting State" (Art 13(1)), including the disposal of shares "in a company, the assets of which consist wholly or principally of real property situated in Australia" (Art 13(2)(b)(ii)), but does not authorise taxation of a gain not made by a resident of one of the Contracting States.

62. As RCF, on my view, is not resident in the US for the purposes of its tax and therefore is not a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention, Art 13 does not authorise Australia to tax the gain to RCF.

63. But the Commissioner points to para (7) of Art 13, which states that, except as provided in the preceding paragraphs, each Contracting State may tax capital gains in accordance with its domestic law. The Commissioner submitted that because the Convention grants primary taxing authority over capital gains to the source Contracting State, in this case Australia, the Convention has no further role. This view rests upon the Commissioner's observation that the wording of para (7) is broad enough to cover gains of every type, including gains from the disposition of real property. In my view, para (7) does not put a Contracting State at large to tax capital gains in accordance with its domestic law. Paragraph (7) is limited by the context in which it appears. First, it does not apply to authorise Australia to tax capital gains from the disposition of "real property" as defined in para (2)(b), otherwise para (1) would be unnecessary. Second, it only authorises Australian taxation of capital gains derived by a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention and, as reasoned in [55] to [60] above, RCF is not a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention. Support for such limitation is to be found in the observation in [2.84] of the Explanatory Memorandum to the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No 1) 2002 which, when enacted, facilitated

ATC 14825

the entry into force of the 2001 Protocol that, by para (7):

Australia will…continue to be able to tax, for instance, capital gains derived by US residents on the disposal of Australian entities .

(Emphasis added.)

Who derived the gain for the purposes of the Convention?

64. Consistent with the principles of interpretation that come out of Thiel and the cases referred to in [46] above, and those extracted in Virgin Holdings at [19] to [24] inclusive ([47]) above), in particular at [24], "[r]ecourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation" (Article 32 of the Vienna Convention) in order to confirm the meaning resulting from "the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose" (Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention); embracing as it does, in the case of a double taxation treaty to which Australia is a party, such as the Swiss Agreement in Thiel, and the Convention in the present case, the OECD Model and the OECD Commentary thereon.

65. RCF is fiscally transparent for US tax purposes and the limited partners are subject to US tax on RCF's income. The OECD Commentary on Art 1 of the OECD Model (which, as noted in [38] above, substantially corresponds with Article 1(1) of the Convention) provides that when partners are liable to tax in the country of their residence on their share of partnership income it is expected that the source country, (in this case, Australia) will apply the provisions of a convention -

… as if the partners had earned the income directly so that the classification of the income for purposes of the allocative rules of Articles 6 to 21 will not be modified by the fact that the income flows through the partnership.

(OECD Commentary on Art 1, para 6.6).

66. Thus, the requirement, imposed by Art 13 of the Convention, that income or gains derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States (US) from the alienation or disposition of real property situated in the other Contracting State (Australia) may be taxed in the other State, is met in the circumstances of the present case by treating the gain as having been derived not by RCF but by its limited partners who or which are residents of the US for the purposes of the Convention.

This interpretation avoids denying the benefits of tax Conventions to a partnership's income on the basis that neither the partnership, because it is not a resident, nor the partners, because the income is not directly paid to them or derived by them, can claim the benefits of the Convention with respect to that income. Following from the principle discussed in paragraph 6.3, the conditions that the income be paid to, or derived by, a resident should be considered to be satisfied even where, as a matter of the domestic law of the State of source, the partnership would not be regarded as transparent for tax purposes, provided that the partnership is not actually considered as a resident of the State of source.

(OECD Commentary on Art 1, para 6.4).

67. Here, RCF was not a resident of Australia for the purposes of the Convention in the year of income and while the Assessment Acts regarded RCF as not being transparent, the OECD Commentary on Art 1 of the OECD Model -

…is founded upon the principle that the State of source (Australia) should take into account, as part of the factual context in which the Convention is to be applied, the way in which an item of income, arising in its jurisdiction, is treated in the jurisdiction of the person claiming the benefits of the Convention as a resident.

(OECD Commentary on Art 1, para 6.3).

68. This same approach and conclusion would be reached even if RCF was a resident in the US for the purposes of its tax and therefore a resident of the US for the purposes of the Convention under Art 4(1)(b)(iii) because it would, nevertheless, be fiscally transparent under US law with the liability for tax falling on the limited partners. So much explains my agreement with the Commissioner's submission recorded in [55] above that ultimately it does not matter in the present case if RCF is resident within the meaning of Art 4(1)(b)(iii) or not. It

ATC 14826

is the limited partners of RCF, not RCF the limited partnership, that Australia is authorised to tax under Art 13(1) of the Convention.

69. At [29] above I made the trite observation that the purpose of the Convention is to avoid the double taxation of the income of residents of the US and Australia. This policy objective was repeated, but specifically in relation to the prevention of the double taxation of capital gains, in [4.41] of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill referred to in [63] above which, when enacted, facilitated the entry into force of the 2001 Protocol. Under the heading "Specification of policy objective", it reads:

The key objective in updating Australia's tax treaty with the United States is to make a significant advance in providing a competitive tax treaty network for companies located in Australia by reducing the rate of DWT on US subsidiaries and branches of Australian companies. An important secondary goal is to prevent double taxation of capital gains derived by US residents on the disposal of interests in Australian entities while retaining Australian taxing rights .

(Emphasis added.)

That policy objective will not be achieved if Australia is authorised under Article 13(1), or is otherwise at large under Article 13(7), of the Convention, to tax the gain to RCF the limited partnership. The US resident limited partners will be liable to US tax on a capital gain without credit for the Australian tax assessed to RCF on the gain. On the other hand, by authorising Australia to tax a gain in the hands of the US resident limited partners, the Convention recognises Australia's taxing right, but at the same time provides in Article 22(1) a credit for any Australian tax suffered as a result of the exercise of that right and so prevents double taxation of the gain. In short, the policy objective is achieved rather than being frustrated as under the position contended for by the Commissioner in the present case.

No Reservations to OECD Commentary

70. The OECD Commentary on Art 1 of the OECD Model extracted in [39] above, had been incorporated from the report adopted by the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 20 January 1999 entitled: "The Application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to Partnerships", by the time of the signing of the 2001 Protocol. Neither the US nor Australia expressed any reservation as to its incorporation.

RCF Submissions

71. RCF submitted that from the perspective of US law such an approach, namely, that for the purposes of the Convention, the gain was derived by the limited partners in RCF which, by Art 13(1) of the Convention, Australia was authorised to tax, if at all, in their hands and not in the hands of RCF the limited partnership, would be consistent with other provisions of the Convention and US treaty policy generally.

72. An example proffered was para (9) of Art 7 of the Convention which provides that when a resident of a Contracting State is beneficially entitled to a share of the business profits of an entity that is treated as fiscally transparent, it is "deemed to be a business carried on" by the resident. RCF submitted that a US court would find that the purpose of that provision was to establish who should be viewed as conducting the activities of the fiscally transparent entity. So much would seem to be beyond argument. RCF further submitted that a US court would construe the Convention as deeming the partner to be conducting those activities, not the partnership. So would, in my view, an Australian court. Finally, RCF submitted that attributing to a partner activities conducted by the partnership is consistent with the view that partners hold shares owned by a partnership for capital gains purposes. I agree.

73. Another example proffered was Art 10 of the Convention. The Technical Explanation 2001, discussing Art 10 of the Convention, provides that "[c]ompanies holding shares through fiscally transparent entities such as partnerships are considered for purposes of this paragraph to hold their proportionate interest in the shares held by the intermediate entity (Technical Explanation 2001, Art 6). This is consistent with the US position that ownership measurement is performed on a look-through basis: Richard E Andersen, Analysis of United States Income Tax Treaties, 2.01[3][b][vi]. Dividends and capital gains both reflect returns to shareholders on investments. RCF submitted

ATC 14827

that through share redemption a return of undistributed earnings of a corporation could easily be structured as a capital gain, at least for US tax purposes. RCF further submitted that a provision identifying proportionate share ownership for dividend purposes would be considered by a US court to be highly influential in determining how capital gains arising through fiscally transparent entities should be characterised for purposes of the Convention.

74. Nor, submitted RCF, has there been any reversal in treaty policy under the US Model Income Tax Convention of November 15, 2006 ("US Model"). Under the US Model a look-through approach is, according to RCF, still used for the purpose of determining who derives income through a fiscally transparent entity. Certainly, there has been no shift from the position that, for treaty purposes, a partner in a fiscally transparent entity derives income and owns its proportionate share of stock held by the entity.

75. Finally, in a mirror transaction involving Australian resident partners in an entity viewed by Australia as a transparent partnership but which the US perceives to be a non-transparent corporation, RCF submitted that a US court applying the Convention to that mirror transaction would be likely to see as determinative the fact that the Australian partners and not the foreign partnership derive the income in question for the purposes of the Convention.

Conclusion

76. For the foregoing reasons, in particular those set out at [55] to [70] above, supported as it were by RCF's submissions at [71] to [75] above, I am of the view that while Art 13(1) of the Convention authorises Australia, by its domestic law, to tax the US resident limited partners in RCF on their respective distributive shares of the gain derived by them on the sale by RCF of the shares in SBM if its requirements are otherwise satisfied, it does not authorise Australia to tax that gain to RCF, the limited partnership, as a non-transparent company.

77. It follows, in my view, that there is an inconsistency between the application of the Convention and the application of the Assessment Acts as to the entity or entities to be taxed on the gain derived on the sale of the SBM shares. In accordance with the provisions of s 4(2) of the Agreements Act, that inconsistency has to be resolved in favour of the application of the Convention to the limited partners in RCF against the application of the Assessment Acts to RCF, the limited partnership.

78. I would therefore answer the first issue - yes: the issue of the Assessment to RCF is precluded by the Convention.

SECOND ISSUE: THE TARP ISSUE

79. My conclusion on the treaty issue is sufficient to allow the appeal; set aside the Commissioner's deemed disallowance of RCF's objection against the Assessment; and allow RCF's objections against the Assessment and the Penalty Assessment in full. Nevertheless, out of deference to the efforts of the parties involved in preparing the TARP issue for hearing; to the proportion of the hearing time devoted to the TARP issue both in terms of evidence adduced and tested; as well as the respective submissions made in reliance on that evidence, it was agreed that even if I was to conclude as I have on the treaty issue, I should nevertheless address and determine the TARP issue. An appeal court will then have the benefit of my reasons and conclusions on both issues.

80. The TARP issue involves a consideration and conclusion on a number of underlying issues including:

The Expert Evidence

81. In relation to the TARP issue both parties called expert witnesses on matters of gold mining geology and valuation. RCF relied on valuation reports from Mr Mark Bryant and Mr Ken Pendergast of Ernst & Young ("EY") (Ex 5) and from Mr Wayne Lonergan of Lonergan Edwards & Associates Ltd ("LEA") (Ex 6), both dated 6 March 2012, while the Commissioner relied on valuation reports from

ATC 14828

Mr Robert Allison of Romar Valuation Services Pty Ltd ("Romar") (Ex A) and from Mr Michael Potter of Axiom Forensics Pty Ltd ("Axiom") (Ex B), both dated 4 May 2012. The Commissioner also relied on a geological report from Mr Ray Cary of Northwind Resources Pty Ltd ("Northwind") dated 4 May 2012 (Ex F).

82. On 10 May 2012, the Court ordered that on or before 14 September 2012 a conference be convened among the parties' expert valuation witnesses for the purpose of identifying matters agreed, matters not agreed and, so far as possible, narrowing or removing the differences between them ("the Conclave"). The Conclave took place on 22-24 August 2012 under the chairmanship of the Honourable Kevin Lindgren AM, QC. A Joint Report of Messrs Ken Pendergast and Mark Bryant (jointly), Wayne Lonergan, Robert Allison, Michael Potter (collectively the "Experts") and Ray Cary dated 29 October 2012 was prepared and tendered into evidence at the hearing (Ex 7) (Experts' Joint Report ("EJR")). The EJR included as appendices: Supplementary Report of EY dated 26 October 2012 (Appendix III), Amended Report of LEA dated 26 October 2012 (Appendix IV), Revised calculations and sensitivities of Axiom dated October 2012 (Appendix V), Supplementary report and documents prepared by Northwind dated 6 September 2012 (Appendix VI), Northwind document dated 9 September 2012 (Appendix VII) and Romar document dated 17 October 2012 (Appendix VIII).

83. It is apparent, even from a review of the Executive Summary in Section A of the EJR, that there was a degree of common ground amongst the Experts, but there was also disagreement on significant issues of principle and valuation methodologies with respect to what are called SBM's "specialised assets" - mining information, plant and equipment and mining rights. It was these areas of disagreement which led to the disparity amongst the Experts as to their conclusions on whether the sum of the market values of SBM's TARP assets as at July 2007 and January 2008 exceeded the sum of the market values of SBM's non-TARP assets as at those dates. Unsurprisingly, the Experts called by RCF (EY and LEA) came to the conclusion that, as at those dates, the sum of the market values of SBM's TARP assets did not exceed the sum of the market values of SBM's non-TARP assets while the Experts called by the Commissioner (Axiom and Romar) came to a contrary conclusion.

84. RCF also relied on three affidavits affirmed by Mr Eduard Eshuys, the first affirmed 1 March 2012 (Ex 3), the second affirmed 31 October 2012 (Ex 4) and the third affirmed 4 December 2012 (Ex 8). Mr Eshuys is currently Executive Chairman of Drummond Gold Limited. Between 24 July 2004 and 9 March 2009, he was Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of SBM. He holds a Bachelor of Science majoring in Geology from the University of Tasmania. He is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Aus/MM). He has over 40 years experience in the resource industry in Australia and in 1996 was awarded the Geological Society of Australia's Joe Harms Medal for distinction in exploration success and project development. Objections were taken to [83] of Ex 3 and [11], [29] and [33] of Ex 4 where Mr Eshuys expresses opinions about the length of time necessary to recreate mining information and the costs associated therewith in respect of Sons of Gwalia ([83] of Ex 3) and in respect of Marvel Loch ([29] and [33] of Ex 4). The Commissioner submitted that to the extent Mr Eshuys asserts that certain steps would be required to "effectively recreate mining information" and the sequence of those steps at [11] of Ex 4, it is not possible to ascertain to what extent those purported opinions are in fact based on specialist knowledge or are mere speculation. He further submitted that Mr Eshuys has not set out any of his reasoning underpinning his opinions concerning the likely cost and time delay associated with recreating mining information. According to the Commissioner, Mr Eshuys has not indicated that he undertook any qualitative analysis of the information that would actually need to be replicated, nor has he set out any of the assumptions he has made for the purposes of arriving at his estimates. Therefore, even if the Court is satisfied that Mr Eshuys has relevant specialised knowledge, it is impossible to discern to what extent his opinions are based on that knowledge. Objection was also taken to

ATC 14829

[24] and [25] of Ex 4 where Mr Eshuys states that he considers confirmation drilling is necessary when recreating mining information because data in the public domain is insufficient. It was submitted that Mr Eshuys fails to set out his reasoning to support these views in a way that makes it possible to understand his reasoning, or whether his view is based on any specialised knowledge; that he has not stated what public domain information he has consulted in reaching this opinion, nor has he set out in detail exactly how it would be insufficient.

85. It was agreed that I should rule on these objections at the time of giving judgment and include in my reasons for judgment my reasons for so ruling. On the second day of the hearing prior to Mr Eshuys being called and cross-examined, Ex 8 was, with the leave of the Court, filed and read. It sought to deal with and answer these objections. Objection was taken to [14] of Ex 8 on the same basis as earlier objections.

86. Having regard to the whole of Mr Eshuys' affidavit evidence (Exs 3, 4 and 8); his evidence in cross-examination (T84/45 to 99/7); and his evidence in re-examination (T99/19 to 102/3), I am satisfied that Mr Eshuys has requisite "specialised knowledge based on [his] … study or experience" (Ex 8 at [3] - [5], Annexure EH9) regarding the creation of mining information - how long it would take to undertake the drilling and subsequent analysis to acquire it and the costs associated therewith - and, it follows, the recreation of such information. I am also satisfied that the opinions he expresses, in particular at [83] of Ex 3, at [11], [29] and [33] of Ex 4 and [14] of Ex 8 are "wholly or substantially based on that knowledge": s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth);
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 at 602-603, [32] per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

87. Moreover, I do not accept that Mr Eshuys has failed to set out his reasoning as to why he considers that confirmation drilling is necessary when recreating mining information despite the availability of public information: [24] and [25] of Ex 4. Mr Eshuys sets out in considerable detail his process of reasoning including:

88. Mr Eshuys' explanations of the considerations to which he had regard and the manner in which he arrived at his opinions together with his personal experience on which they were based is consequently not "mere speculation" and is to be contrasted with that of the expert evidence rejected by the High Court in Dasreef where the witness, a chemist and chemical engineer, gave a bare estimate of the silica dust concentrations to which Mr Hawchar was exposed without any reasoning of what he based the estimate on whatsoever. RCF pointed out that while the Commissioner adduced evidence from Mr Cary, a geologist, Mr Cary pointedly does not contradict Mr Eshuys' evidence in this regard and in particular that his estimates are overstated.

89. RCF submitted that submissions of the Commissioner on what is necessary for admissibility of Mr Eshuys' opinions amounts to a "counsel of perfection", something that the Full Court has rejected in
Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354; [2002] FCAFC 157 at [7]. Relevance aside, all that is necessary is for the Court to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the opinion is based wholly or substantially on that knowledge: ibid at [14]. According to RCF, it cannot be seriously suggested that Mr Eshuys' opinion is not wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge.

90. So much may be accepted. In any event, an expert with considerable experience accumulated over the course of a long career

ATC 14830

can generalise, based on their experience, their opinion without having to prove all the facts upon which their evidence is based:
Arnotts Ltd v TPC (1990) 24 FCR 313 at 350-351;
Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in Liq) v Selim [2008] FCA 416 at [25]-[26] per Emmett J.

91. For these reasons, I reject the objections to Mr Eshuys' affidavit evidence raised by the Commissioner.

Statutory Context

92. Division 855 of Part 4-5 was inserted in the 1997 Act by Act No 168 of 2006. Section 855-1 relevantly provides that a foreign resident can disregard a capital gain or loss unless the relevant CGT asset is a direct or indirect interest in Australian real property.

93. Section 855-10 directs that a capital gain from a CGT event is to be disregarded if "you are" a foreign resident and the event happens in relation to a CGT asset that is not taxable Australian property.

94. The shares disposed of by RCF will be taxable Australian property if they are an "indirect Australian real property interest" (item 2 of the table in s 855-15), a status which relevantly depends on whether they are an interest which passed the principal asset test set out in s 855-30. Section 855-30 relevantly provides:

95. Sub-section (1) speaks of the purpose of the section as being to define when an entity's underlying value is principally derived from Australian real property. What the section is concerned to measure is not the value (singular) of SBM or all the assets of its business as a going concern, but the values (plural) of its underlying assets (whether or not used in a business) and to define when the sum of the values of its underlying assets (what it calls the "entity's underlying value") is principally derived from Australian real property. Sub-section (2) provides the criterion for passing the "principal asset test": when the sum of the market values of the entity's assets that are TARP exceeds the sum of the market values of its assets that are non-TARP.

96. It is clear from the text of s 855-30(2) that the "principal asset test" requires the separate determination of the market value of each of the entity's assets; not the determination of the market value of all its TARP assets as a class and the determination of the market value of all its non-TARP assets as a class (although where an entity has only two or three assets in a particular class, such a determination may be tempting as a surrogate short-cut); and certainly not the determination of the market value of all its assets on a going concern basis. The test further requires the classification of these assets into TARP or non-TARP. Finally, it requires the summing of the values in each class to determine whether the sum of the market values of the entity's TARP assets exceed the sum of the market values of the entity's non-TARP assets; only if it does, is the "principal asset test" passed.

97. It is trite that the value of a business on a going concern basis valued by reference to the present value of predicted earnings of the business may be greater than the sum or aggregate of the individual market value of each identifiable asset comprising the business:
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry (1998) 193 CLR 605 at [49];
Commissioner of Territory Revenue v Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd (2008) 156 NTR 1 at [116] per Angel J. Whether or not it is correct to characterise the difference as goodwill in the legal sense, an issue on which the Northern Territory Court of Appeal was split in the latter case, may or may not be relevant in the present case. It will depend on the figures. In the present case, if the difference is goodwill in the legal sense, and therefore property of SBM, it is, on any view, a non-TARP asset. If it is not goodwill in the legal sense and therefore not property of SBM, it will be neither a TARP asset nor a non-TARP asset. However, importantly for present purposes, if a going concern valuation of all of SBM's assets is used for allocating market values to individual assets of SBM as a

ATC 14831

surrogate for undertaking separate valuations of those assets on a stand-alone basis, an overstatement of those values will result and, depending on the basis of allocation, an overstatement of the market values and therefore the sum of those values of the TARP assets or an overstatement of the market values and therefore the sum of those values of the non-TARP assets; or both. To use a term used by Angel J in Alcan (NT) at [116], it "jumbles" the value of goodwill, or the marriage value of the assets, with its sources.

The Valuation Hypotheses

98. One area of controversy or dispute between the parties on the TARP issue concerns the hypotheses by reference to which a value is to be measured. The use of the words "market value" (as compared, for example, to "value in use") imports the notion of the value that could be realised on exchange. All the Experts adopted (EJR at [10], [37]) a formulation derived from
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 at 432 (Griffiths CJ), 441 (Isaacs J):

The value that would be agreed, in an open and unrestricted market, between a knowledgeable, willing but not anxious buyer and a knowledgeable, willing but not anxious seller acting at arm's length.

99. This formulation does not involve an inquiry into the price a person desiring to sell could actually have obtained for it on a given day, but is predicated on a hypothetical sale within the terms of the formulation. So much is clear from what Griffith CJ said in Spencer at 432:

It may be that the land is fit for many purposes, and will in all probability be soon required for some of them, but there may be no one actually willing at the moment to buy it at any price. Still it does not follow that the land has no value. In my judgment the test of value of land is to be determined, not by inquiring what price a man desiring to sell could actually have obtained for it on a given day, i.e., whether there was in fact on that day a willing buyer, but by inquiring "What would a man desiring to buy the land have had to pay for it on that day to a vendor willing to sell it for a fair price but not desirous to sell?"

100. In Spencer, Isaacs J at 440-441 described "the fair price of the land" as being, that "which a hypothetical prudent purchaser would entertain, if he desired to purchase it for the most advantageous purpose for which it was adapted". This has been referred to as the "highest and best use" of the asset to be valued:
Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (2007) 167 ALR 575 at [271]-[274] per Callinan J. There was consensus among the Experts that the highest and best use of SBM's "specialised assets" is in a business of mining the reserves in SBM's mining tenements.

101. RCF submitted that having regard to the text of s 855-30 and what it requires to be determined, the formulation to be derived from Spencer and the many cases in which it has been followed is to ask of the asset to be valued: What, if that asset only were to be offered for sale, would be agreed as its price between knowledgeable, willing but not anxious parties acting at arm's length? In other words, the asset is to be valued by reference to the hypothetical price that would be agreed between such parties on a stand-alone basis as if no other asset were offered for sale. On the other hand, the Commissioner submitted that the formulation to be derived from Spencer and Yates Property Corporation, in particular the price that a hypothetical purchaser would pay for the most advantageous purpose for which the asset is adapted, or its "highest and best use", required a valuation of the assets of SBM on the basis of a hypothetical sale of all of those assets on a going concern basis and the allocation of that "total combined asset market value to the categories of TARP assets and Non-TARP assets" (Memorandum of Axiom to Maddocks of 29 November 2012 (Ex D)).

102. Both submissions are not without their problems. Fundamentally, RCF's formulation is, in my view, the correct starting point. However, the formulation needs to go further and incorporate the further assumption that, in the case of hypothetical transactions involving mining information or plant and equipment, the hypothetical purchaser is the owner of the mining rights and, as such, is able to use the relevant asset, mining information or plant and equipment, in a manner consistent with the most advantageous purpose for which it is adopted or, its "highest and best use". All the

ATC 14832

Experts agreed that this was in a business of mining the reserves in SBM's mining tenements.

103. Fundamentally, the Commissioner's submission, which mirrored the approach of those of the Experts he called, in particular Axiom, is wrong. It is contrary to the statutory criterion mandated by s 855-30(2) as outlined in [95] to [97] above. As previously noted, s 855-30(2) is not concerned with the determination of the market value of all of SBM's assets as a going concern; it is concerned with the determination of the individual market values of SBM's assets, at least before the summing and comparison of the dual classification of those assets.

104. The Commissioner contended that bizarre results would flow from a formulation of the hypothesis to be derived from Spencer that postulated that no asset, other than the asset to be valued, was to be offered for sale. For example, in the case of mining information, such a hypothesis, it was submitted, would be destructive of its value and, in the case of other assets, for example, plant and equipment, it would inevitably result in it having little, or no, value depending on whether the transport costs to move it off site exceeded its tolling or second-hand value. But that would not be the case if the formulation incorporates the further assumption referred to in [102] above.

The Valuation Methodologies

105. Adoption of such hypotheses would require different methodologies in relation to different assets. In the case of the mining rights, their hypothetical price, as the determinant of their individual market value, would be the value which could be extracted from the tenements by mining them, as ascertained by reference to discounted cashflows, less the cost (time delay cost as well as outlay) of re-creating the mining information and replacing the plant and equipment assumed not to be owned by the owner of the mining rights and not otherwise available for purchase. Such a methodology is consistent with that adopted by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in
Nischu Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1990) 21 ATR 329 and by the Full Court of that Court on appeal:
Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) v Nischu Pty Ltd (1991) 4 WAR 437 in relation to the valuation of the land of Murchison Zinc Company Pty Ltd ("Murchison"); recognising that "in agreeing upon a price for the land, the hypothetical vendor and purchaser would have regard to the cost of regenerating or acquiring the important information that would not otherwise be available to the purchaser after the sale" (at 396). A fortiori in the case of the plant. The Full Court unanimously dismissed the Commissioner's appeal from this decision and held that the mining tenements were correctly valued on the basis that "the hypothetical vendor and purchaser would have regard to the cost of regenerating or acquiring the important information that would not otherwise be available to the purchaser after the sale. This cost would cause the parties to reduce the price that would otherwise be appropriate for Murchison's land" (at 445 per Malcolm CJ; at 456 per Wallace and Pidgeon JJ each concurring), and that the cost had properly been assessed by taking into account "the cost of replacing the information, costs or losses resulting from consequential delay in development … and the risk of unforeseen costs" using a discounted cash flow analysis (at 448 per Malcolm CJ).

106. In the case of the mining information, if the formulation of the hypothesis to be derived from Spencer incorporates the further assumption referred to in [102] above, the methodology would provide a range within which the hypothetical price, as the determinant of its market value, would be negotiated. That range would extend from a low point of zero for its retention by the hypothetical vendor or, in the alternative, an equivalent nominal amount on its sale to a purchaser not being the owner of the mining rights, to a high point of the cost (time delay cost as well as outlay) to the hypothetical purchaser of re-creating the mining information. The manner of determining the hypothetical price point within that range is a matter I return to later.

107. In the case of the plant and equipment, a similar methodology would be adopted save that the low point of the range within which the hypothetical price, as the determinant of its market value, would be negotiated, would be its sale-for-removal price. The manner of

ATC 14833

determining the hypothetical price point within that range is also a matter I return to later.

108. In all cases, such an approach would satisfy the "highest and best use" principle embedded in the hypothesis to be derived from Spencer without recourse to changing what the clear text of the statute requires to be valued. In saying as much, I accept that such a hypothesis, and consequential methodologies, were not embraced by all of the Experts in their reports, although, apart from Romar, each made concessions of varying degrees in their oral evidence. That is a matter which I consider below in the context of evaluating its effect on the conclusions the Experts came to in their respective reports on the market values of SBM's "specialised assets", along with the consequence for the ultimate conclusions to be reached on the TARP ratios at the relevant dates.

The Classification of SBM's Assets

109. The EJR at [171] identified SBM as having specialised assets in the form of plant and equipment, mining information, land improvements (the mine pit, mine shaft and so on) and mining rights.

110. It was common ground that the only material tangible asset of SBM which is TARP is the mining rights owned by SBM. An immaterial amount of land appears to have been owned by a dormant subsidiary.

111. The Experts took different views as to the treatment of the "gold premium" (the difference between the value of shareholders' interests in a gold company derived by the use of the market capitalisation method and the value of shareholders' interests in that gold company derived by the use of the discounted cash flow ("DCF") method. In my view, it can be argued that it is not an asset of SBM at all and would therefore be excluded from the assessment of the ratio of TARP to non-TARP assets ("TARP ratio"). On the other hand, if it is an asset of SBM, it is a non-TARP asset.

112. Axiom and Romar allocated part of the value of plant and equipment to footings which were treated as fixtures to the tenements. RCF submitted, correctly in my view, that such fixtures, if any, are fixtures to the land, not to the mining rights, and while affixed are not property of SBM, which does not own the land. SBM retains the rights and obligation to remove them.

113. It was common ground that mining information and plant and equipment were non-TARP assets. Indeed, the mining information, as distinct from the documents and things which contained that information, is not itself property: see
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v United Aircraft Corporation (1944) 68 CLR 525 at 534 per Latham CJ;
Pancontinental Mining Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1989] Qd R 310. Whatever light the mining information may throw on the value of the tenements to which it relates, the information itself does not form part of the tenements:
Nischu (1990) 21 ATR 391 at 394; on appeal
(1991) 4 WAR 437 at 443 per Malcolm CJ.

Review and Analysis of the Experts' Approaches

Market Value of SBM's Total Assets

114. With a view to calculating the market value of SBM's TARP assets, the Experts started with a measure of the market value of SBM's total assets (EJR at [20]) and proceeded to the value of the mining rights as a residual item after deducting the assessed value of the non-TARP assets which, of course, included the "specialised assets" of mining information and plant and equipment. So much is illustrated in the tables at [32] of the EJR, reproduced at [123] below.

115. As a first step, I propose to analyse the respective ways the Experts get to this common starting point although, as will be apparent from what is said above, in my view it is likely to mislead one in the determination of the values required by the statute.

116. Of the two broad bases used by the Experts to assess the market value of SBM's total assets, LEA, EY and Axiom considered that the DCF method of valuation was more reliable than the market capitalisation method, while Romar alone preferred the market capitalisation method (EJR at [21] to [25]). I agree with the submission of RCF that, for the reasons advanced by LEA in Ex 10 and at T107-108/25 the market capitalisation method is unreliable and the DCF method is to be preferred in assessing the market value of SBM's total assets.

117.

ATC 14834

It follows that I reject Romar's calculations of the sum of the market values of SBM's TARP assets and its calculations of the sum of the market values of SBM's non-TARP assets as at July 2007 and January 2008 based on the market capitalisation method.

118. Romar also undertook an assessment of the market value of SBM's total assets at the same two dates on the DCF method and came up with exactly the same figures as it did for the market capitalisation method - $751 million as at July 2007 and $ 1,210 million as at January 2008 (see EJR at [32]).

119. The market value ascribed to SBM's total assets at the relevant dates by EY, LEA and Axiom on the DCF method, namely -

EY LEA Axiom Mean Value
$M $M $M $M
July 2007 436 528 507 490
January 2008 926 1,041 946 971

are within approximately 11% of their mean value at both dates. Romar's values are substantially divergent and larger due to its DCF valuation including assessment of items not explicitly captured in "static" DCF models and assessed tax amortisation benefits (EJR: note (7) to both tables in [32]; and at [131]).

120. LEA critiqued Romar's "DCF value" in the following terms (Ex 10):

121. There was no response to this critique and, faced with that lack of response, I am of the view that Romar's application of the DCF methodology to measure the market value of SBM's total assets at the relevant dates is flawed in the respects indicated.

122. In my view, the range of market values of SBM's total assets assessed by EY, LEA and Axiom at the two relevant dates in reliance on the DCF method are to be preferred to the market values of SBM's total assets assessed by Romar at the same two dates in reliance on the same method. As these total asset values provide a foundation stone for each of the Experts' calculations of the sum of the market values of SBM's TARP assets at the same two dates, Romar's calculations are, in my view, attended with sufficient doubt as to make reliance on them unsound.

123. The Experts' calculations of the sum of the market values of SBM's TARP assets and

ATC 14835

their calculations of the sum of the market values of SBM's non-TARP assets as at July 2007 and January 2008 and the resulting TARP ratios based on the DCF method are summarised in tabular form at [32] of the EJR:

ATC 14836



Market Value of SBM's Mining Operations

124. Following the Conclave, EY, LEA and Axiom revised their DCF derived value of SBM's mining operations at the relevant dates as disclosed in the table below. This analysis did not include the value of SBM's assets not engaged in those operations but which had been included in the DCF derived value of SBM's total assets as detailed in [119] above.

ATC 14837


Non-Business Assets

125. Subject to minor differences, there was general agreement amongst the Experts as to the value of the non-business assets, all non-TARP assets, save for the following:

126. The only observations I would make on the treatment and values ascribed to the assets referred to in [125] above are that:

Principal Areas of Disagreement

127. As indicated at [83] above, as well as there being disagreement amongst the Experts on significant issues of principle, such as touched upon in relation to the valuation hypothesis at [98] to [104] above, there was also disagreement amongst the Experts in the valuation methodologies to be adopted in valuing SBM's mining information, and its plant and equipment, both in relation to calculating a derived market value for SBM's mining rights, its principal TARP asset, as well as in valuing those particular assets for inclusion in the non-TARP asset class. This disagreement is manifest in the tables at EJR [32], reproduced in [123] above.

EY's Methodology

Approach and Assumptions

128. EY's approach and the assumptions underlying the hypothetical transaction in the TARP assets (the mining rights) the value of which is being assessed, is consistent with that described in [105] above.

129. On the basis of its hypothesis, EY reasoned, correctly in my view, that the maximum that a hypothetical purchaser would have paid for the TARP assets would have been the value of the business when built, less the expected costs of acquiring the other (non-TARP) "building blocks" - significantly mining information and plant. On the assumption that SBM's actual mining information and actual plant and equipment were not available, those costs were the costs (including delay costs) of re-creating the mining information and the costs of acquiring replacement plant. As observed in [105] above, this is consistent with the methodology adopted in Nischu.

The Values of SBM's Principal Mining Operations

130. As indicated at [124] above, as a result of reviewing the reports of other Experts and discussions at the Conclave, EY amended its calculations of the market values of SBM's two principal mining operations in four respects: see CB2492 at [59] to [64], to arrive at the figures of $247 million at 25 July 2007 and $700 million at 29 January 2008: CB2492 at [65].

ATC 14838

Calculations of Maximum TARP values

131. EY observe that the hypothetical purchaser of the TARP assets would have (on the basis on which they were instructed to value) anticipated a delay in the business operations whilst the mining information was re-created: CB2494 at [70]. They further observe that the hypothetical purchaser would also have anticipated out-of-pocket costs of the re-creation: CB2494 [71]. At CB2494 [72] they conclude:

Accordingly, in calculating the maximum it would pay for TARP assets, the hypothetical purchaser would have:

  • • adjusted the DCF value of the business that might be built, so as to allow for the delay; and
  • • deducted from the adjusted DCF value expected the out-of-pocket costs of re-creation.

132. In calculating the effect of the delay, they observe at CB2494 [73]-[75]:

and conclude at CB2494 [79]:

79. We calculate the effect of the delay as the difference between the present value of the cash flows without the delay and the present value of the cash flows assuming a delay. Based on the delay periods as to which we are now instructed, and the values of the mining operations that we calculated … the present value of the effect of the delay was $105 million as at 25 July 2007 and $195 million as at 29 January 2008.

133. EY changed the assessed costs of re-creation based on information included in Mr Eshuys' second affidavit (Ex 4), leading to total out-of-pocket costs at 25 July 2007 of $59 million and at 29 January 2008 of $62 million: CB2496 at [82]. This led to them calculating the total deduction that a hypothetical purchaser of the TARP assets would make, to allow for the recreation of the mining information.


25 July 2007 29 January 2008
$M $M
Effect of delay 105 195
Cost of exploration and evaluation 59 62
Total deductions for mining information 164 257

See CB2496 at [83].

134. In relation to the cost of recreating plant they observe (at CB2496):

135.

ATC 14839

Their conclusion on the maximum value of the TARP assets is expressed in the table at CB2497 [90]:
25 July 2007 29 January 2008
$M $M
Total market value of the two principal mining operations 247 700
Deductions for:    
- Mining information (164) (257)
- Plant (66) (95)
Add:    
- Land in subsidiary 1 1
- Other exploration areas 23 23
Maximum values for TARP assets 41 372

136. In relation to the expression of their calculations of the value of the TARP assets as maximum values, they say this is so for a number of reasons (at CB2491):

Non-TARP Assets

137. EY considered the value of the assets of SBM that were non-TARP as follows:

25 July 2007 29 January 2008
$M $M
Non-TARP assets recorded in the financial statements:    
  Cash 95 115
  Trade and other receivables 9 8
  Inventories 8 14
Derivative financial assets:    
  Current 3 -
 

ATC 14840

Non-current 10 20
Investments in:    
  Listed securities 19 19
Other non-TARP assets:    
  Plant and equipment 16 30
  Tarmoola plant 2 2
  Mining information 164 257
Tax losses 19 24
Total non-TARP assets 345 489

138. They make the following observations on these values (at CB2498):

LEA's Methodology

Approach

139. LEA approached the task of calculating the maximum value of TARP assets in a similar way: the value of all assets of SBM (assessed on a DCF basis plus the value of assets not included in the DCF analysis) less the value of non-TARP assets. LEA's revised DCF valuation took into account the expert geological evidence of Mr Cary and his analysis of the confidential SBM information obtained on subpoena. This caused LEA to reduce its assessment of the volume of gold able to be produced and hence reduced its DCF valuation as follows (at CB2510 [17]):


140. In its earlier report, in calculating total assets of SBM, LEA did not allow for the rehabilitation liabilities that would be incurred by SBM at the end of the mining operations. Based on the disclosures in the SBM financial statements, LEA estimated these to be some $19 million (in present value terms) at July 2007, and some $20 million (in present value terms) at January 2008. Incorporating these and other amendments, LEA reviewed its calculation of total assets of SBM to the following (at CB2515 [40]):

SBM total assets Para Jul 2007 Jan 2008
$M $M
Value as per DCF analyses 17 338 795
Less: Rehabilitation provision not allowed for in the DCF 18 (19) (20)
Add: Items not reflected in DCF analysis      
  Cash   96 115
  Derivatives   13 20
  Available for sale financial investments 22 20 19
  Tax losses   19 24
  Value of resources outside of mine plans and extensions 21 34 59
  Exploration tenements 20 23 23
  Cash receivable from option exercise 39 5 6
SBM - total assets   528 1,041

141. LEA valued non-TARP assets other than plant and mining information at their realisable value to SBM (which, according to the type of asset, may be face value or traded price). Plant was valued at depreciated replacement cost and mining information was valued at its replacement cost plus - the plus being the taking into account cash outlays and the loss of cash flow until the re-creation process was complete.

Mining Information

142. In its earlier report, LEA adopted the assumption that the mining information for the mining operations at both Southern Cross (principally Marvel Loch) and Leonora (Gwalia Deeps) would both take four years to reproduce. As a result of reviewing the material in Mr

ATC 14842

Eshuys' second affidavit (Ex 4), LEA in its amended valuation adopted a two year period for re-creation of mining information at Marvel Loch and the Southern Cross satellite operations (at CB2512 [29]). This resulted in the following amended values being attributed to mining information (at CB2514 [36]):

Plant and Equipment

143. In its earlier report, LEA assessed the value of plant and equipment to the information set out in Mr Eshuys' first affidavit (Ex 3) and with reference to the price paid for plant, equipment and infrastructure at other gold mines including that of Avoca Resources in June 2008. LEA conceded that in including reference to Avoca Resources Plant and Equipment acquisition, it did not make appropriate allowance for the "non-linear" relationship between plant and equipment capacity and costs. LEA's revised value for plant and equipment are principally derived with reference to the estimate advanced by Mr Eshuys (CB2511 [23]) and [24]). This is set out in the table below (CB2512 [25]):


Maximum Value of TARP Assets

144. Based on the discussions held with the other Experts in this matter and the information in Mr Eshuys second affidavit (Ex 4) LEA amended its valuation opinions of the TARP and non-TARP assets held by SBM as at July 2007 and January 2008 to the following (CB2509 [12]):

ATC 14843


SBM - value of TARP assets Jul 2007 Jan 2008
$M $M
Value of SBM's interest in all assets 528 1,041
Value of SBM's interest in non-TARP assets:    
  Cash 96 115
  Working capital 16 23
  Derivatives 13 20
  Available for sale financial investments 20 19
  Plant and equipment 117 135
  Mining information 178 356
  Goodwill 10 20
  Tax losses 18 24
  Cash receivable from options exercise 5 6
  Total non-TARP assets 472 718
Value of total TARP assets 56 323
Value of TARP as a percentage of total assets 10.6% 31.1%

Axiom's Methodology

Approach

145. Axiom approached the task of valuation on the basis that s 855-30(2) of the 1997 Act required the assets of SBM to be valued on a going concern basis and then to allocate "the total combined assets market value to the categories of TARP assets and Non-TARP assets". It adopted this approach as a necessary reflection of the "highest and best use" principle embedded in the hypothesis to be derived from Spencer. Its approach is exemplified in the summary below extracted from Ex D:

The ITAA requires an assessment of the market value of the assets of SBM in a hypothetical sale(s), not the market value for ownership interests in SBM.

The definition of market value provided in Spencer's case applies i.e. the value that would be agreed, in an open and unrestricted market, between a knowledgeable, willing but not anxious buyer and a knowledgeable, willing but not anxious seller acting at arm's length.

The assets associated with the mining interests of SBM have been valued on the basis they are hypothetically sold in their combined form , principally the Gwalia and Southern Cross mining interests, in a simultaneous transaction, by hypothetical vendor(s) to hypothetical purchaser(s). This assumption is made on the basis that the best sale price will be achieved if the sale is on a going concern basis as it is the "highest and best use" (this will include "marriage value").

…

It is then necessary to allocate the total combined assets market value to the categories of TARP assets and Non-TARP assets sold in combination for Gwalia and Southern Cross to arrive at individual asset market values . The TARP asset categories primarily comprise mining rights and land improvements (where the land improvements can be considered as separate TARP assets or are included in mining rights on the basis the owner of the mining rights has use of such improvements which would improve its value). The Non-TARP asset categories primarily comprise mining information and plant & equipment.

The appropriate method of allocation is the residual approach: The value of the TARP assets included in the Gwalia and Southern

ATC 14844

Cross mining interests is the difference between the total combined asset market value and the Non-TARP assets market value.

(Emphasis added.)

146. As indicated at [101] to [104] above, I do not think that the "highest and best use" principle embedded in the hypothesis to be derived from Spencer supports an approach which would construe s 855-30(2) as requiring the valuation of something the text of the section is not concerned with.

Mining Information

147. In the tables at [123] above, Axiom has valued SBM's mining information on two different bases. The first (Axiom 1) on a book value basis which, as at 26 July 2007, is put at $18 million; and as at 29 January 2008 at $20 million. Under the second (Axiom 2) mining information is valued on a replacement value basis (excluding time delay costs) at $55 million as at 26 July 2007 and $68 million as at 29 January 2008. However, these latter figures are figures which Axiom was instructed to adopt rather than figures that Axiom independently calculated. So much is explained in Axiom's report of 4 May 2012 at [14.115] (Ex B, CB1076):

Whilst I note that it is possible to calculate the replacement cost of each of SBM's assets, undertaking such an exercise is outside my expertise.

Plant and Equipment

148. In the tables at [123] above, Axiom valued SBM's plant and equipment at book value under both Axiom 1 and Axiom 2 - $14 million as at 26 July 2007 and $31 million as at 29 January 2008.

149. Following the Conclave, Axiom calculated a value for plant and equipment on a replacement cost basis which it described as follows (EJR, Appendix V, CB2535):

150. In consequence, Axiom revised its calculations of TARP assets and non-TARP assets from those appearing in the tables at [123] above, as follows (EJR, Appendix V, CB2535 [2.16]):

Table 18: TARP assets and non-TARP assets ($'m)
26 July 2007 Base valuation Sensitivity valuation Variance
TARP assets 329 253 (76)
Non-TARP assets 178 249 71
TARP less non-TARP assets 151 4 (147)
TARP as % of total assets 64.9% 50.4% (14.5%)
       
29 January 2008 Base valuation Sensitivity valuation Variance

ATC 14845

TARP assets 719 634 (86)
Non-TARP assets 226 308 82
TARP less non-TARP assets 493 325 (168)
TARP as % of total assets 76.0% 67.3% (8.8%)

151. By way of analysis of Axiom's methodology, in addition to the fundamental observation at [146] above, I would, at this stage, proffer two further observations. First, it is difficult to attach any weight to Axiom's revised calculations in [149] above in the face of the extract from its original report reproduced in [147] above. Second, and this goes to the fundamental basis upon which Axiom allocates the total market value of SBM's assets, or at least its "specialised assets", to arrive at individual market values of TARP assets and non-TARP assets, namely, book value, Axiom itself concedes (Ex B, CB1076):

14.116 … There are some problems with the application of book value. For example, it is well understood that book value of an asset such as plant and equipment is rarely an accurate measure of its market value.

(Emphasis added.)

Consideration and Analysis of the TARP Issue

152. Before undertaking an analysis of the interaction between the statutory criterion of s 855-30(2), in other words, what it calls to be valued, my formulation of the hypotheses upon which the measurement of that value is to be determined (see [102] and [104] above) and the methodologies to be employed in the measurement process (see [105] to [107] above), I should say I do not propose to rely on Romar's figures or calculations for the reasons explained at [116] to [122] above. This is consistent with the final submissions made on behalf of the Commissioner on the last day of the hearing; his senior counsel relied exclusively on the hypothesis, methodology and calculations of Axiom in support of his defence of the Assessment, and his ultimate contention that the sum of the market values of SBM's TARP assets exceeded the sum of the market value of its non-TARP assets at both 26 July 2007 and 29 January 2008.

153. Nor, albeit for different reasons, do I propose to rely on Axiom's figures or calculations. First and foremost, its fundamental approach that s 855-30(2) of the 1997 Act required the assets of SBM to be valued on a going concern basis and then to "allocate the total combined asset market value to the categories of TARP assets and Non-TARP assets" (Ex D) finds no support in the statute. With respect, it is wrong. Second, its reliance on book values as the market values of the mining information and plant and equipment, is, by Axiom's own concession "rarely an accurate measure" (see [151] above). Third, Axiom's Axiom 2 calculations of the replacement cost of plant and equipment as at 26 July 2007 and 29 January 2008 are "outside [its] expertise" (see [147] above). Finally, its rejection of the methodology approved and adopted in Nischu in valuing Murchison's mining property in reliance on factual distinctions between that case and the present case, is not persuasive. They seem to me to be distinctions without a difference.

Mining Rights

154. For the purpose of valuing SBM's principal mining rights on the hypothesis that they are th e only asset offered for sale, the starting point, as indicated in [105] above, is the revised DCF derived values of SBM's mining operations at the relevant dates as disclosed in the table in [124] above:

EY LEA
$M $M
25 July 2007 247 319
29 January 2008 700 775

155. The next step in the methodology, as explained in [105] above, is to deduct the cost, time delay as well as outlay, of re-creating the mining information and replacing the plant and equipment, those assets not being offered for sale under the hypothesis, to arrive at the value

ATC 14846

of the principal mining rights. This is depicted in the table below for each of EY and LEA at the relevant dates:

Mining Information

156. For the purpose of valuing SBM's mining information on the hypothesis that it is the only asset offered for sale and on the further assumption referred to in [102] above, the hypothetical price of the mining information, as the determinant of its market value, would be negotiated in a range somewhere between a low point, being the amount to be realised by the hypothetical vendor if no transaction is done (zero), or an equivalent nominal amount on its sale to a purchaser not being the owner of the mining rights, and a high point, being the cost, time delay as well as outlay, to the hypothetical purchaser of re-creating the mining information.

157. While there is an upper and lower point to the hypothetical negotiation range, there is no logical intermediate point guided by any business or financial principle. It follows, that if the task were to predict the outcome of such an

ATC 14847

actual negotiation, as a question of fact, the Court has no assistance and no evidentiary basis for doing so. But that is not the task here: the task under s 855-30(2) is to ascertain a market value, and the hypothetical sale transaction is no more than a useful and conventional method for doing so. I agree with RCF's submission that an appropriate basis for ascertaining market value in such a case is one which fairly arrives at a value, and that the fair valuation is one which shares equally between the holder, and the potential user, of the relevant asset the benefit to the user of immediate acquisition of the asset. That value is ascertained by dividing the notional "bargaining zone" equally. In this way, the hypothetical price of the mining information, as the determinant of its market value, is arrived at as a mid point between the maximum that the hypothetical purchaser, as the owner of the mining tenements, might pay to acquire the information (being the amount of outlay and the value of loss of cashflow suffered to re-create it) and the maximum the hypothetical vendor of the information could realise from any other disposal of the information. This is depicted in the table below for each of EY and LEA at the relevant dates:

Mining Plant and Equipment

158. For the purposes of valuing SBM's plant and equipment on the hypothesis that it is the only asset offered for sale and on the further assumption referred to in [102] above, the hypothetical price of the plant and equipment, as the determinant of its market value, would be negotiated in a range somewhere between a high point, being the cost (including the time delay cost) to the hypothetical purchaser of acquiring replacement plant and equipment and a low point, being the price that could be expected for the plant and equipment on its resale elsewhere, that is, other than to the owner of the mining rights.

159. Again, there is no logical intermediate point guided by any business or financial principle. But again, this is not an impediment to the task of ascertaining a market value by reference to a hypothetical price on a hypothetical transaction. Again, I agree with one which fairly arrives at a value, and that the fair valuation is one which shares equally between the holder, and the potential user, of the relevant asset the benefit to the user of immediate acquisition of the asset. That value is ascertained by dividing the notional "bargaining zone" equally. In this way, the hypothetical price of the plant and equipment, as the determinant of its market value, is arrived at as a mid point between the maximum that the hypothetical purchaser, as the owner of the mining tenements, might pay to acquire replacement plant and equipment (being the amount of outlay and the value of loss of cashflow suffered to replace it) and the maximum the hypothetical vendor of the plant and equipment could realise from any other disposal of it. This is depicted in the table below for each of EY and LEA at the relevant dates:


160. The remaining goodwill or "marriage value" of the assets would be the residual value calculated as follows:


Whether the Principal Asset Test is passed by SBM

161. Set out at [163] and [164] below in tabular form are sets of calculations based on the foregoing analysis of the individual market values of SBM's assets, in particular, its "specialised assets" - mining rights, mining information and plant equipment. The market values of its other assets were largely uncontroversial and any diversity of opinion amongst the Experts was, at worst, only marginal. Again, this is reflected in the tables below, albeit confined as they are to EY and LEA.

162. The first table of calculations is predicated on the basis that the residual intangible figures as calculated in [160] above, represent goodwill in the legal sense referred to by the majority in Alcan (NT) and therefore is property of SBM. However, as indicated at [97] above, on no view would that be a TARP asset.

163. The second table of calculations is predicated on the basis that the residual

ATC 14849

intangible figures as calculated in [160] above, do not represent goodwill in the legal sense referred to and therefore is not property of SBM. On that view, it is treated as neither a TARP asset nor a non-TARP asset of SBM at the relevant dates.

164. The first table of calculations leads to the following results:

TABLE 1


165. The second table of calculations leads to the following results:

ATC 14850

TABLE 2


166. On these results, SBM does not pass the principal asset test in s 855-30 of the 1997 Act at either of the relevant dates.

167. For the foregoing reasons, RCF's appeal must be allowed with costs.

 

Disclaimer and notice of copyright applicable to materials provided by CCH Australia Limited

CCH Australia Limited ("CCH") believes that all information which it has provided in this site is accurate and reliable, but gives no warranty of accuracy or reliability of such information to the reader or any third party. The information provided by CCH is not legal or professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, no responsibility for damages or loss arising in any way out of or in connection with or incidental to any errors or omissions in any information provided is accepted by CCH or by persons involved in the preparation and provision of the information, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, from the use of or results obtained from information supplied by CCH.

The information provided by CCH includes history notes and other value-added features which are subject to CCH copyright. No CCH material may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy for your personal use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In particular, the reproduction of any part of the information for sale or incorporation in any product intended for sale is prohibited without CCH's prior consent.