Nix v. Hedden the respondent and found that the tomato should be classified under the customs regulations as a vegetable, based on the ways in which it is used, and the popular perception to this end. Justice Horace Gray, writing the opinion for the Court, stated that: Justice Gray, citing several Supreme Court cases ("Brown v. Piper," 91 U.S. 37, 42, and "Jones v. U.S.," 137 U.S. 202, 216) stated that when words have acquired no special meaning in trade or commerce, the ordinary meaning must be used by the court. In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as
Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation them just across the dividend record date. General anti-avoidance provisions didn't apply, because both parties' taxable incomes increased. A holding period rule of the kind alluded to by Barwick and Stephen above had to be instituted. Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 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. In the taxonomy of tax schemes, this was