In the case of Industry Research & Development Board (IRDB) v Bridgestone Australia, the federal court ruled in favour of the IR&D Board allowing the appeal against Bridgestone. The federal court requested that the matter be remitted to the AAT to be heard and determined again by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
This appeal concerns the construction and application of ss 39M and 39C of the Industry Research & Development Act 1986.
Bridgestone claimed to be entitled to allowable deductions from its assessable income for the three substituted accounting periods commencing on 1 January 1989 and ending on 31 December 1991 (1989, 1990 and 1991 income tax returns) under s 73B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
The IR&D Board gave the Commissioner of Taxation a certificate as a consequence of which the deductions were not allowable.
Bridgestone successfully applied to the AAT for review of the IR&D Board’s decision and the IR&D Board failed on its subsequent appeal to the AAT.
The IR&D Board now appeals from the primary Judge’s dismissal of that appeal.
The appeal will be allowed resulting in a win for the IR&D Board.
The federal court did not believe that the contract between Bridgestone and it’s Japanese parent would have been entered into by persons dealing with each other at arm’s length and from positions of comparable bargaining power.