Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd

Last updated

Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd
New South Wales coa.png
Court NSW Court of Appeal
Decided12 December 1977
Citation(s)[1977] 2 NSWLR 616; 3  ACLR  185
Case history
Prior action(s)Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 162; 2  ACLR  298
Appealed from Supreme Court of NSW
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Moffitt P Hutley and Mahoney JJA

Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd, [1] is a NSW Court of Appeal case on Australian company law, [2] and is an authority for the proposition that an interim dividend was revocable until the dividend was paid, a declared final dividend was a debt payable by the company to the shareholder from the date stipulated for payment. [3] [4]

BW Rofe Pty Ltd was a shareholder in Marra Developments, which had declared a dividend. When the time came for the payment of the dividend, the directors of Marra declined to make payment. Marra had profits available when it declared the dividend. However, between the declaration of the dividend and the date upon which it was to be paid, the assets of Marra were revalued. The revaluation caused a diminution in the book value of Marra's assets which wiped out the company's profit for the year.

Marra obtained a declaration from the Supreme Court that the shareholder was not to payment of the dividend, [5] and the shareholder appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, Moffitt P, Hutley and Mahoney JJA, unanimously upheld the appeal, holding that profits need only be available at the time the dividend is declared, not at the time when it is to be paid. Hutley JA held that an interim dividend was entirely provisional and anticipates the profits to be disclosed in the final accounts. [1] :p 622 In relation to a final dividend, as the dividend became payable on declaration, each shareholder became entitled to be paid the debt thereby created. Marra had argued that the subsequent events meant the dividend would not be payable out of profits. Hutley JA held that:

If from the profit and loss account ... there is sufficient to permit the declaration of the dividend, the losses between the end of the financial year in which these accounts are produced cannot be used to prevent, on legal grounds, the declaration and payment of a dividend, unless the subsequent revealed losses invalidate the accounts themselves. Any other approach makes the right of a shareholder to a dividend which has been declared entirely capricious. [1] :p 625

Related Research Articles

Dividend Payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits

A dividend is a distribution of profits by a corporation to its shareholders. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it is able to pay a proportion of the profit as a dividend to shareholders. Any amount not distributed is taken to be re-invested in the business. The current year profit as well as the retained earnings of previous years are available for distribution; a corporation usually is prohibited from paying a dividend out of its capital. Distribution to shareholders may be in cash or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or by share repurchase. In some cases, the distribution may be of assets.

Equity (finance)

In finance, equity is ownership of assets that may have debts or other liabilities attached to them. Equity is measured for accounting purposes by subtracting liabilities from the value of an asset. For example, if someone owns a car worth $9,000 and owes $3,000 on the loan used to buy the car, then the difference of $6,000 is equity. Equity can apply to a single asset, such as a car or house, or to an entire business. A business that needs to start up or expand its operations can sell its equity in order to raise cash that does not have to be repaid on a set schedule.

United Kingdom corporation tax UK tax on UK-resident companies and companies with permanent establishments in the UK

Corporation tax in the United Kingdom is a corporate tax levied in on the profits made by UK-resident companies and on the profits of entities registered overseas with permanent establishments in the UK.

The retained earnings of a corporation is the accumulated net income of the corporation that is retained by the corporation at a particular point of time, such as at the end of the reporting period. At the end of that period, the net income at that point is transferred from the Profit and Loss Account to the retained earnings account. If the balance of the retained earnings account is negative it may be called accumulated losses, retained losses or accumulated deficit, or similar terminology.

Dividend imputation is a corporate tax system in which some or all of the tax paid by a company may be attributed, or imputed, to the shareholders by way of a tax credit to reduce the income tax payable on a distribution. In comparison to the classical system, it reduces or eliminates the tax disadvantages of distributing dividends to shareholders by only requiring them to pay the difference between the corporate rate and their marginal tax rate. The imputation system effectively taxes distributed company profit at the shareholders' average tax rates.

Income taxes in Canada constitute the majority of the annual revenues of the Government of Canada, and of the governments of the Provinces of Canada. In the fiscal year ending 31 March 2018, the federal government collected just over three times more revenue from personal income taxes than it did from corporate income taxes.

<i>Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.

Australian contract law concerns the legal enforcement of promises that were made as part of a bargain freely entered into, forming a legal relationship called a contract. The common law in Australia is based on the inherited English contract law, with specific statutory modifications of principles in some areas and the development of the law through the decisions of Australian courts, which have diverged somewhat from the English courts especially since the 1980s. This article is an overview of the key concepts with particular reference to Australian statutes and decisions. See contract law for very general doctrines relating to contract law.

<i>Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a High Court of Australia case concerning the tax position of company owners who sold to a dividend stripping operation. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed the proceeds should be treated as dividends, but the Court held they were a capital sum like an ordinary investment asset sale.

In the United Kingdom, the advance corporation tax (ACT) was part of a partial dividend imputation system introduced in 1973 under which companies were required to withhold tax on dividends before they were distributed to shareholders. The scheme was similar to the way banks were required to withhold an amount at a set rate on interest earned on bank deposits before it is paid to the account holder.

Contractual term

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, breach of which can give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

<i>Besloten vennootschap</i> Dutch and Belgian version of a private limited liability company

A besloten vennootschap, or Société à responsabilité limitée (SRL), is the Dutch and Belgian version of a private limited liability company. The company is owned by shareholders, and the company’s shares are privately registered and not freely transferable. It is the most common form of limited company in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Surrogatum is a thing put in the place of another or a substitute. The Surrogatum Principle pertains to a Canadian income tax principle involving a person who suffers harm caused by another and may seek compensation for (a) loss of income, (b) expenses incurred, (c) property destroyed, or (d) personal injury, as well as punitive damages, under the surrogatum principle, the tax consequences of a damage or settlement payment depend on the tax treatment of the item for which the payment is intended to substitute.

Australian corporate law

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Soden v British and Commonwealth Holdings plc [1998] AC 298 is a UK insolvency law case, decided in the House of Lords. It decided that damages for negligent misrepresentation inducing purchase of company shares are not "sums due" to shareholders for the purpose of the Insolvency Act 1986, s 74(2)(f), so that a claim for such damages is not subordinated to claims from other creditors.

United States v. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co., 113 U.S. 711 (1885), regarded a suit that was brought to foreclose mortgages given to secure bonds issued by the Indianapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company. A final decree of foreclosure having been passed, the mortgaged property was sold, and the sale was confirmed by the court. The United States intervened by petition, and asked that certain sums, alleged to be due to the government on account of taxes, be first paid out of the proceeds.

<i>Nudd v Taylor</i>

Nudd v Taylor, was a court case, decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 30 August 2000. The case concerned Australian Private International Law, specifically giving a Queensland authority to the application of the Moçambique rule.

A property tax known as "rates" has been levied in Hong Kong since 1845. The tax applies to all domestic and commercial properties unless exempted, and is based upon the rental value of the property, re-assessed each year. Formerly part of the revenue went to the Urban Council and, from 1986, the Regional Council, but since 2000 the whole amount goes to the Hong Kong Government.

Cohen, NO v Segal is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boshoff J on March 17, 1970, with judgment handed down on April 28. The case is significant for its finding that a dividend cannot be declared which has the effect of diverting a portion of the corpus of the company to the shareholders. A dividend may therefore, generally speaking, only be declared out of profits, and a resolution which declares a dividend to be paid out of the capital of the company is ultra vires the company.

<i>Muschinski v Dodds</i>

Muschinski v Dodds, was a significant Australian court case, decided by the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1985. The case was part of a trend of High Court decisions to impose a constructive trust where it would be unconscionable for a legal owner of property to deny the beneficial interests of another. In this case the Court held it would be unconscionable for Mr Dodds to retain a half share of the property without first accounting for the purchase price paid by Ms Muschinski.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd [1977] 2 NSWLR 616; 3 ACLR 185. NSW Court of Appeal.
  2. ↑ Concise Corporations Law , p. 144, at Google Books
  3. ↑ Bluebottle UK Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] HCA 54 , (2007) 232 CLR 598(5 December 2007), High Court.
  4. ↑ "Cases and articles referring to Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd". LawCite.
  5. ↑ Marra Developments Ltd v BW Rofe Pty Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 162; 2 ACLR 298. Supreme Court.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.