•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In the recent case of Stone v FCT, the Australian Federal Court had difficulty in determining whether grant payments made to an elite athlete should be characterised as income. Both levels of the Court determined the character of the payment based on a whether or not Ms Stone was carrying on a business or merely pursuing a hobby. This article argues that the distinction between a business and hobby should not blur the interpretation of what constitutes income according to ordinary concepts. The suggested threshold of when voluntary payments received by an athlete will attain the character of income should be when the individual commences commercially exploiting their personal attributes for money.

Share

COinS