This case was mentioned here a while ago. A developer bought two parcels of land, with the initial intention of developing the land with another party in a joint venture. The joint venture dissolved, the taxpayer rented his property and sold it a few years later. The commissioner declared in a private ruling that the sale was not the 'mere realisation of a capital asset', but the end result of a property development. The AAT agreed. I thought at the time that the ruling was a bit harsh. The Commissioner seemed to decide it was a development because the taxpayer happened to be involved in other developments, and had a DA on the property. The Federal Court have now reversed the ruling and the decision of the AAT, and returned it to the AAT to answer question 2. The FCT found that the correct application of ITAA1997 was that the profit was not ordinary income, but the mere realisation as argued by the taxpayer. This to me is a good decision. Common sense from the courts!