The following is a brief preview - the full content of this page is available to premium users only.
Click here to subscribe...
On 15 March 1990, in the Federal Court of Australia in the Australian Capital Territory, three Judges considered the test which should be applied to decide whether or not bowls are works of art under the Sales Tax Act.1 Many people in the art world are already aware of the case: the Commissioner of Taxation -v- Richard Murray.2 The Federal court was hearing an appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Murray's favour. The decision was appealed against because it concerned an important point of tax law and practice, and the Commissioner agreed to pay the Murrays' reasonable costs of defence. Suddenly the Arts Law Centre found itself involved in its first Federal Court appeal.
Richard Murray, after studying painting, drawing and sculpture, became an art teacher and taught for ten years. He then became a full-time potter, and his work included dinnerware produced in great quantity, with virtually the same design used for all pieces. Although these items were produced individually and by hand, they were produced for a functional purpose and sold as dinnerware. Mr Murray paid sales tax upon them at the rate of 10%, being the appropriate rate for household goods.
The issue which was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court was whether certain other articles produced by Mr Murray were works of art. The works in question included bowls, platters and near spherical shapes. Each work was individually created, on a potter's wheel, and fired, after being painted with glaze and pigment using a special technique. Works of art are exempt from sales tax under item 68(2) in Division 10 of the First... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline