ATO Interpretative Decision

ATO ID 2002/952 (Withdrawn)

Excise

Excise - Payments - Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme - eligibility of fuel used by an earthmoving contractor
FOI status: may be released
  • This ATO ID is withdrawn from the database because it contains a view in respect of the diesel fuel rebate provisions of the Excise Act 1901 and or the Customs Act 1901 that were repealed with effect from 1 July 2003. Despite its withdrawal from the database, this ATO ID continues to be a precedential view in respect of decisions for fuel purchased before 1 July 2003.
    This document incorporates revisions made since original publication. View its history and amending notices, if applicable.

CAUTION: This is an edited and summarised record of a Tax Office decision. This record is not published as a form of advice. It is being made available for your inspection to meet FOI requirements, because it may be used by an officer in making another decision.

This ATOID provides you with the following level of protection:

If you reasonably apply this decision in good faith to your own circumstances (which are not materially different from those described in the decision), and the decision is later found to be incorrect you will not be liable to pay any penalty or interest. However, you will be required to pay any underpaid tax (or repay any over-claimed credit, grant or benefit), provided the time limits under the law allow it. If you do intend to apply this decision to your own circumstances, you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed. You may wish to obtain further advice from the Tax Office or from a professional adviser.

Issue

Is diesel fuel used in earthmoving, to enable storage facilities to be built, eligible for rebate within the meaning of 'agriculture' in paragraph 78A(1)(aa) of the Excise Act 1901 (Excise Act) as well as paragraph 164(1)(aa), and subsection 164(7) of the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act), where the activity is performed on behalf of a storage provider?

Decision

No. The earthmoving work undertaken on behalf of a storage provider is not an agricultural activity within the definition of 'agriculture' in subsection 164(7) of the Customs Act.

Facts

The applicant entity is an earthmoving contractor, which successfully tendered for the earthworks portion of a contract for construction of a grain storage facility on land owned by a cooperative of primary producers.

The applicant entity has submitted that it is entitled to the diesel fuel rebate on the basis that the diesel fuel was used in agriculture.

Reasons for Decision

Under paragraph 78A(1)(aa) of the Excise Act and paragraph 164(1)(aa) of the Customs Act a rebate is payable to a person who purchases diesel fuel for use by the person in 'primary production'. All the relevant definitions are contained in subsection 164(7) of the Customs Act.

Primary production is relevantly to include agriculture. The definition of agriculture includes (at paragraph (r)) the carrying out of earthworks for use in a core agricultural activity if the earthworks are carried out on the agricultural property where the core agricultural activity is carried on.

The term 'core agricultural activity' means an agricultural activity, which is carried out, for the purposes of, or for purposes that will directly benefit, a business undertaken to obtain produce for sale.

Agriculture is defined as:

'(a)
the cultivation of the soil; or
(b)
the cultivation or gathering in of crops; or
(c)
the rearing of livestock; or
(d)
viticulture, horticulture, pasturage or apiculture.'

The earthmoving works carried out by the applicant entity do not fall within the definition of agriculture. Although the earthmoving work might be said to have a connection with the 'gathering in of crops', the case law shows it is crucial that there is a sufficient connection between the use of the diesel fuel and the relevant agricultural activity: Australian National Railways Commission v. Collector of Customs, South Australia (1985) 8 FCR 264 and Collector of Customs v. Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 115 ALR 1.

As the relevant earthmoving work is preparatory to the construction of a grain storage facility, it is only remotely connected with the activity of 'gathering in of crops' and therefore is not eligible for the diesel fuel rebate.

Date of decision:  19 September 2002

Legislative References:
Customs Act 1901
   paragraph 164(1)(aa)
   subsection 164(7)

Excise Act 1901
   paragraph 78A(1)(aa)

Case References:
Australian National Railways Commission v. Collector of Customs, South Australia
   (1985) 8 FCR 264

Collector of Customs v. Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd
   (1993) 115 ALR 1

Keywords
Northbridge ATO
Precedent
Excise
Diesel fuel rebate scheme
Excise payments
DFRS agriculture

Business Line:  Excise

Date of publication:  2 October 2002

ISSN: 1445-2782

history
  Date: Version:
  19 September 2002 Original statement
You are here 8 January 2010 Archived