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
Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1977 High Court of Australia case concerning a novel tax scheme whereby some 5,000 university students became primary producers (as in farmers) for tax purposes, allowing them certain income averaging benefits. The Australian Taxation Office held this was tax avoidance, but the test case was decided in favour of the taxpayer, one of the students, Brian Cridland. In the taxonomy of tax schemes, this one was in the category of a wholly intentional tax benefit but which people other than those intended came to access. Amendments