Cheung v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 1370
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Date of Judgment: 29 November 2024
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Lin Jum Cheung (referred to as “Rene”), a resident of Australia, received approximately $33 million in deposits from Vanuatu bank accounts into his Australian accounts between the 2005 and 2015 income years. These deposits originated from the business Au Bon Marche (ABM), a successful supermarket chain in Vanuatu. ABM was founded in 1974 by Rene’s sister, Mrs. Graziella Leong, and her then-husband, and it expanded into a major enterprise under Mrs. Leong’s sole ownership after her separation in 1978.
Rene retired as ABM’s General Manager in 2000 due to health reasons and relocated to Australia. Following his retirement, Mrs. Leong periodically transferred funds to Rene for investment and family-related purposes. Rene argued that these funds constituted gifts or capital transfers, not income.
The Commissioner of Taxation (“the Commissioner”) assessed the funds as taxable income under ordinary concepts. The objection decision upheld the assessments in part, attributing $32,799,580 in deposits (excluding interest income of $1,953,631) as Rene’s income.
The key issue was whether the funds transferred to Rene during the relevant period constituted taxable income under ordinary concepts within the meaning of section 6-5 of theIncome Tax Assessment Act 1997(Cth).
Issues
- Whether the deposits totaling $32,799,580 constituted “income under ordinary concepts” and were therefore assessable as Rene’s taxable income.
- Whether the payments made at Rene’s direction to various entities in Australia constituted income.
- Whether the funds constituted gifts or capital transfers in the nature of familial support.
Decision
Justice Logan allowed Rene’s appeal and held that the deposits did not constitute income under ordinary concepts. The Commissioner’s objection decision was set aside, and the case was remitted for amended assessments based solely on Rene’s interest income.
Key Findings
1. Ownership of Au Bon Marche: The Court found that Mrs. Leong was the sole owner of ABM throughout the relevant period. Rene held no ownership interest, either formally or informally, in the ABM business.
2. Character of Payments:
a. The funds transferred to Rene were capital in nature, derived from ABM profits voluntarily gifted by Mrs. Leong. These payments were not made as remuneration for services or as returns on an ownership interest.
b. Rene was entrusted by his sister to invest and manage surplus funds for the benefit of the broader Cheung/Leong family. The transfers were explained as a product of strong familial bonds and a tradition of financial support.
c. Periodicity of the transfers, though extensive, did not alter their essential character as gifts.
3. No Services Rendered: The Court rejected the Commissioner’s submission that the payments were rewards for Rene’s past services as General Manager of ABM or a form of pension. Rene had retired from ABM in 2000 and rendered no remunerative services during the relevant period.
4. Familial Dynamics: Justice Logan emphasized the cultural and familial context underpinning the transfers. The payments reflected the long-standing tradition of financial support within the Cheung/Leong family, particularly from successful business members to other family members.
5. Trust and Investments: Funds invested in various Australian entities (such as Ah Pow Pty Ltd and Simmattown Unit Trust) were managed by Rene for the benefit of the family. These investments did not create any entitlement to income for Rene but reflected his role as a trusted family figure.
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that not all receipts constitute assessable income, particularly where funds are gifted within a familial context. The judgment highlights: The importance of the recipient’s role, intentions, and circumstances in determining the character of a payment; The distinction between income and capital transfers under Australian taxation law; Judicial recognition of familial support traditions and their relevance to tax assessments.
The decision provides valuable guidance for taxpayers and tax practitioners on the treatment of familial transfers, periodic payments, and the evidentiary burden required to challenge assessments.
Latest Posts：
- Privacy Challenges in the AI Era: Is Your Information Truly Secure?
- 5% Deposit Scheme Explained: New Opportunities for First Home Buyers
- Zong Fuli Steps Down: The Succession Challenge for Private Enterprises
- “I want a divorce, but he’s in prison overseas” – Wang Nuannuan’s cross-border divorce dilemma
- What is International Public Notary? A Practical Guide for Seamless Cross-Border Document Circulation