Newton v. Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia, [1958] A.C. 450 (PC)

In interpreting the provisions of s. 260 of the Commonwealth Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, 1936-1951 (Australia), Lord Denning stated (p. 465):

"The word 'purpose' means, not motive but the effect which it is sought to achieve - the end in view."

Before finding that dividend stripping transactions were void for taxation purposes by virtue of s. 260 of the Commonwealth Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, 1936-1951 (Australia) Lord Denning stated (p. 465):

"Their Lordships are of opinion that the word 'arrangement' is apt to describe something less than a binding contract or agreement, something in the nature of an understanding between two or more persons - a plan arranged between them which may not be enforceable at law. But it must in this section comprehend, not only the initial plan but also all the transactions by which it is carried into effect - all the transactions, that is, which have the effect of avoiding taxation, be they conveyances, transfers or anything else."