Cir v fraser - the case resulted in the legislation we have now. The case is inland revenue and ean fraser. He was television, current affair presenter and he presented in news for while. He was high profile - well known . He appeared in some commercial for bank of nz. Bank of nz paid him diff year lump sum in order for him to not do do other television work. This is nearly 30 year ago, the amount were substantial . $30000 1 year, next year $50000, these were large sum of money. Mr fraser argued that this was not taxable. And his reason for doing this is as he say it related to his own capital structure. He saying that bec these payments were made for him as a person to not compete elsewhere. He say i am capital in this case it is a restriction for him, therefore it is capital, and not taxable. This is a novel and interesting argument. Court agreed with him. Court said that's fine. It was treated as capital and didn't pay tax on these payment. You can guess what happen. We have new legislation about restrictive covenants. When somebody give you undertaking that either restrict ability to perform service as employee etc. Whether or not it is legally enforceable and a payment made for that undertaking that amount is income. So we have clear now in the legislation. It prob 30 year looking on the decision is shows weigh one.. Lump sum made elsewhere is not taxable