ATO Interpretative Decision

ATO ID 2004/179

Income Tax

Fixed maximum fee as a factor in determining control under section 51AD
FOI status: may be released

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you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed.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

Will a payment still be a 'fixed maximum fee' for the purpose of paragraph 19 of Taxation Ruling IT 2602 in determining whether there is control of the use of property by an end-user under subparagraph 51AD(4)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936), where payments are made on a 'take or pay' basis and the contract provides for a reduction in the payments where the contracted capacity is unavailable?

Decision

Yes. A payment will still be a 'fixed maximum fee' for the purpose of paragraph 19 of IT 2602 in determining whether there is control of the use of property by an end-user, where payments are made on a 'take or pay' basis and the contract provides for a reduction in the payments where the contracted capacity is unavailable.

Facts

The arrangement involved property owned and used by the taxpayer in the provision of a service of conveying energy for a tax exempt entity ('the end-user'). The end-user determined whether or not it wished the energy to be conveyed.

Payments from the end-user to the taxpayer for the service were made on a take or pay basis as they were not based on whether the energy was actually conveyed but on the capacity of the property at any time to carry the volume of contracted energy. The arrangement imposed a reduction on the payments from the end-user to the taxpayer where the contracted capacity was not met.

All of the capacity of the property to convey energy was allocated for the use of the end-user and the taxpayer was unable to use the property to convey energy for any entity other than the end-user.

Reasons for Decision

Subparagraph 51AD(4)(b)(ii) of the ITAA 1936 operates in relation to property acquired or constructed by a taxpayer that is used wholly or partly in the carriage, transmission or delivery of goods, or in the provision of services where a body whose income is exempt from tax ('the end-user') has effective control of the use of the property.

Taxation Ruling IT 2602 provides that the question of control may require an examination of the whole commercial arrangement, including the financial arrangements, surrounding the ownership and operation of the property.

Paragraph 19 of IT 2602 states that an arrangement for the payment of a fixed maximum fee would effectively limit the commercial benefits which can flow from the operation of the property by the taxpayer and might suggest the end-user rather than the taxpayer would seek to control the day-to-day operation of the property.

Payments that are made on a take or pay basis where the payments from the end-user provide the required return to the taxpayer from the use of the property, without recourse to material income from third parties, will constitute a fixed maximum fee for the purpose of paragraph 19 of IT 2602.

The fact that payments from the end-user under the arrangement were dependent upon the contracted service being provided, and that the payments would be reduced if the contracted capacity was not provided, was not a factor in determining whether the payments constituted a fixed maximum fee within the context of paragraph 19 of IT 2602.

Date of decision:  6 February 2004

Year of income:  Year ended 31 March 2003

Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
   paragraph 51AD(4)(b)
   subparagraph 51AD(4)(b)(ii)

Related Public Rulings (including Determinations)
Taxation Ruling IT 2602
Taxation Ruling TR 96/22

Related ATO Interpretative Decisions
ATO ID 2002/932

Keywords
Ownership, interests, control & rights
Non recourse loans

Siebel/TDMS Reference Number:  3232641

Business Line:  Public Groups and International

Date of publication:  27 February 2004

ISSN: 1445-2782