In the Supreme Court the Australian Taxation Office argued that either the two Vam transactions above were shams, or that if they were real then they came under the section 260 anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
A "sham" in this context would mean there was some different underlying arrangement between the parties, and the documents they made were never meant to be enforced (or worse, written or re-written after the fact).