Reference no: EM133809452

Question

Eunson v CIR 1963 - Good example to understand the concept of mere realisation Mr. Eunson, a farmer in the southern part of New Zealand's South Island, bought some land for farming. However, he discovered that part of the land was within the city boundary of Invercargill, which meant he couldn't use it for farming. After consulting with a surveyor and his neighbor, who was in a similar situation, they decided to subdivide the land within the city boundary and sell off the lots. The question that arose was whether this subdivision and sale of land constituted a profit-making scheme or undertaking. At first glance, it might seem so, as they were selling the land in a way that would yield the most profit. However, the court ruled that this was a case of "mere realization". The court's reasoning was that Mr. Eunson was simply selling his asset (the land) in a way that would give him the best outcome. This did not necessarily mean he was engaged in a profit-making scheme or undertaking. He was just managing his assets in the most beneficial way possible, which is not the same as running a profit-making scheme.