Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Whitfords Beach was handed down a quarter of a century ago, it was hailed as a landmark decision which had all but overruled Scottish Australian Mining Co Ltd v FCT (1950)81 CLR 188. It also seemed to indicate that the second limb of s 26 (a) of ITAA 1936 had been unnecessary. The subsequent decision in FCT v Myer Emporium Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 199 indicated that the first limb of that subsection had also een unnecessary. Yet subsequent decisions have avoided the application of Whitfords Beach and shown that Scottish Australian Mining is the more dominant precedent. Despite the prevalence of some dicta about carrying on land development business, Whitfords Beach was a profit‐making scheme case and the central issue was whether a profit making scheme could be constituted by selling alone. Whitfords Beach indicated that it could, though no subsequent case has been decided on this ground. The limited legacy of Whitfords Beach remains significant because, although corporate tax rates are now 30% for revenue and capital gains alike, there is much farmland that is being subdivided by individuals who are escaping tax because of the limited impact of Whitfords Beach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".