Common directorship alone is insufficient for related-person valuation, so assessable value could not be based on the buyer's sale price.

Common directorship, by itself, was held insufficient to establish related-person status for valuation purposes where there was no further material showing the requisite relationship between the manufacturer and the buyer company. On those facts, assessable value could not be determined on the buyer's sale price, and the buyer's advertising and sales promotion expenses could not be added on that basis. The Tribunal sustained the order dropping the proceedings and rejected the departmental challenge to the assessable value adopted. The limitation objection was left unexamined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent and the buyer company were related persons so as to justify determination of assessable value on the buyer's sale price and inclusion of advertising and sales promotion expenses incurred by the buyer.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the existence of a common director, who held a small shareholding in the respondent and was also associated with the buyer company, was sufficient to establish related-person status. The issue was already covered by prior Tribunal decisions holding that common directorship alone, without more, did not establish such a relationship on the facts considered.

Conclusion: The companies were not related persons. The departmental appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order dropping the proceedings was sustained, and the challenge to the assessable value adopted by the department was rejected. The limitation objection was left unexamined.

Ratio Decidendi: Common directorship by itself is insufficient to establish related-person status for valuation purposes in the absence of further material showing the requisite relationship.

---