Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Just briefly, the ATO says a whole range of things all the time. In fact, the number of court cases where people have taken on the ATO would fill this room and one besides, I am sure, and there would be myriad court cases currently going. What the ATO says in a decision is not the relevant issue here. The superior document is what the legislation says or, in this case, does not say. The legislation is there for you to read; it is there in black and white. It actually goes to preclusions which, in section 40.1020 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, are quite evident: there are two there, and they do not include land. So land is in. It is capital expenditure, without a shadow of a doubt. It is not precluded, without a shadow of a doubt. Are other items that would be deemed to be capital expenditure precluded? Yes, they are. That is, ipso facto, a statement that all other forms are in. All you have to do is trot off to court and present your case and say, ‘This is the legislation; this is what it says.’ What the ATO says is quite irrelevant.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milne’s and Senator Joyce’s) be agreed to.