Nix v. Hedden aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Gray acknowledged that botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine"; nevertheless, they are seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a dessert. In making his decision, Justice Gray mentioned another case where it had been claimed that beans were seeds — Justice Bradley, in "Robertson v. Salomon," 130 U.S. 412, 414, similarly found that though a bean is botanically a seed, in common parlance a bean is seen as a vegetable. While on the subject, Gray clarified the
Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation or the last, nor even the biggest example of such transactions. The tax landscape has changed considerably since these times. The anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA are much broader and specifically apply against dividend stripping of the kind Cadiz used. Capital gains tax would apply to Slutzkin's proceeds too. Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 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