Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation,[1] was a High Court of Australia case concerning the tax position of company owners who sold to a dividend stripping operation.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed the proceeds should be treated as dividends, but the Court held they were a capital sum like an ordinary investment asset sale.

The principal interest in the case today is its part in judicial interpretation of the section 260 anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, and indirectly in overall dividend stripping operations of the time (insofar as action against the vendors' position failed).

But from 1 July 1967 the law on undistributed profits tax changed and Francis Richards as constituted could no longer serve that purpose.

In late 1968 Slutzkin wished to dispose of Francis Richards, to save ongoing accounting fees and operating costs.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed that selling Francis Richards, rather than liquidating or declaring a dividend, constituted a tax avoidance scheme, and that the proceeds should be treated as income in the hands of the trustee shareholders.

Only if the voided contracts left some set of facts taxable by other parts of the act would it result in new taxation.

The anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA are much broader and specifically apply against dividend stripping of the kind Cadiz used.