This case reminds us that deeming provisions are to be read strictly in line with their purpose14.
A general rule operated to engage CGT provisions ‘as if you had received money or other property if it has been applied to your benefit … or as you direct’15. Jagot J (at ) said legal fictions are not construed beyond what is necessary to achieve their object. As a result, the CGT rule did not make a person the owner of shares merely because they were applied as she directed. This case underlines the care to be taken when assessing the purpose of a deeming provision, something often complicated by the need to make artificial assumptions.
This case is from Episode 35 of interpretationNOW!
15 s 103-10(1) of ITAA97 – Entitlement to receive money or property.