Tomato avocados, and squashes of all kinds (such as zucchini and pumpkins) are all botanically fruit, yet cooked as vegetables. This has led to legal dispute in the United States. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on vegetables, but not on fruit, caused the tomato's status to become a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled this controversy on May 10, 1893, by declaring that the tomato is a vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies vegetables by use—they are generally served with dinner and not dessert ("Nix v. Hedden" (149 U.S. 304)). The holding
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