An attempt by Channel Seven to claim a tax rebate by listing its reality wedding show Bride and Prejudice as a documentary work has been knocked back after Screen Australia objected to the characterisation.

Key points: Documentaries can claim a tax offset not open to reality TV

Documentaries can claim a tax offset not open to reality TV Channel Seven claimed Bride and Prejudice was a documentary

Channel Seven claimed Bride and Prejudice was a documentary A tribunal rejects the claim the "unoriginal" show is a documentary

A tribunal decision found the show was not a documentary because certain scenes were scheduled or organised by producers, it was "unoriginal", and it failed to analyse or criticise its subject matter.

The reality show, which has aired for two seasons, billed itself as following couples "desperate to marry the love of their life, but their families don't approve".

While the on-screen drama was high, Channel Seven told the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) none of the key content on the program was contrived or put on for the cameras — one of its arguments as to why the program qualified for a documentary tax break.

The show features couples whose families disapprove of their love. ( Supplied: Channel Seven )

The tax offset in dispute can only be granted to feature films and series filmed in Australia that meet certain standards — and while documentaries can claim the offset, reality television programs cannot.

Screen Australia, which is responsible for granting the rebate, told the tribunal producers for the show had paid for some family members to travel overseas to attend some weddings.

Producers also scheduled various scenes in call sheets, effectively predetermining when events would be allowed to take place — including paying for one couple to be serenaded by a choir during a picnic.

Participants in the show were also paid for appearing in it.

Screen Australia suggested that level of control amounted to contriving what was happening in front of the camera.

"The participants were, for the most part, not persons with acting training, but did their best to put on a good show," AAT deputy president Brian Rayment said.

"The program model was itself contrived in my opinion, involving an apparent arrangement between the producers and those who appeared on screen so as to put what would usually be done in private into the public arena."

Another key definition of a documentary that Channel Seven had to meet was that Bride and Prejudice "explore an idea or theme".

And while on the whole Mr Rayment found the series unoriginal and not compelling, he did note it explored a theme.

"It is hardly demonstrative of original thought to engage five couples and, in some cases, their relatives to make public the matters recorded in the episodes, and to edit the resulting film," he said.

"The series would seem to some to be superficial or, perhaps, overly emotional in content, or unappealing, but that does not show that a theme was not explored."

Screen Australia also noted Bride and Prejudice was listed in the "reality" section of Seven's website, rather than its "documentary" section.

Mr Rayment applied a number of questions developed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority adopted by Screen Australia as a measure of whether a series or film could be treated as a documentary.

He found Bride and Prejudice failed to meet the standards set and rejected their appeal.