根据Bective v FCT (1932) 47 CLR 417案;Lees & Leech Pty Ltd诉FCT 97 ATC 4407，所得收入由受领人自行取得(Greg, 2016)。在上述情况下，来自木材的收入也是为了个人利益，因此，伐木公司将收入作为收入，并对该收入进行评估。
以McLaurin v FCT (1961) 104 CLR 381为例。对于几项未清偿索赔的赔偿款项，其接收方式为包含收入和资本成分的未分割的一次性金额，这在本质上是资本，因为收入成分不能与资本“分离”并单独表征(Greg, 2016)。
Under the ITAA in s6 (1), any income that is from the personal exertion is counted under the income assessment. In case of Jack, pine trees are required by the company and pay $200 for every 100 lineal feet of timber. Since, the payment to Jack will be for the timber on the property owned by Jack, and hence this will be assessed as income from the property. The tree or fruits income comes under the common law and hence will be assessed. The tree is considered as signified capital or fixed assets. Under the Australian common law, all the fixed assets income is considered as the income under sec.6 ITAA 1997.
As per the case Countess of Bective v FCT (1932) 47 CLR 417; Lees & Leech Pty Ltd v FCT 97 ATC 4407, the income was derived by the recipients for his/her own benefits (Greg, 2016). In the above case, as well, the income from the timber is for the personal benefits hence this is the reason the earned recipient’s income by the logging company will be considered as the income and this income will be assessed.
According to case example McLaurin v FCT (1961) 104 CLR 381.A compensation payment for several unliquidated claims which is received as an undissected lump sum amount comprising both income and capital components, is capital in nature because the income component cannot be “severed” from the capital and separately characterized (Greg, 2016).
This case clearly indicates that any income either paid as several claims or as lump sum is considered as capital income. This income component cannot be separate characterized from the income that is given to Jack by the logging company.