Income tax: capital gains: if a parcel of land acquired after 19 September 1985 is subdivided into lots ('blocks'), does Part IIIA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 treat a disposal of a block of the subdivided land as the disposal of part of an asset (the original land parcel) or the disposal of an asset in its own right (the subdivided block)?
Please note that the PDF version is the authorised version of this ruling.This ruling contains references to repealed provisions, some of which may have been rewritten. The ruling still has effect. Paragraph 32 in TR 2006/10 provides further guidance on the status and binding effect of public rulings where the law has been repealed or repealed and rewritten. The legislative references at the end of the ruling indicate the repealed provisions and, where applicable, the rewritten provisions.This document has changed over time. View its history.
FOI status:may be releasedFOI number: I 1015253
|This Determination, to the extent that it is capable of being a 'public ruling' in terms of Part IVAAA of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 , is a public ruling for the purposes of that Part. Taxation Ruling TR 92/1 explains when a Determination is a public ruling and how it is binding on the Commissioner. Unless otherwise stated, this Determination applies to years commencing both before and after its date of issue. However, this Determination does not apply to taxpayers to the extent that it conflicts with the terms of a settlement of a dispute agreed to before the date of issue of the Determination (see paragraphs 21 and 22 of Taxation Ruling TR 92/20).|
Why issue this Taxation Determination?
Answer to question posed in this Taxation Determination
2. We consider that the effect of registering separate new titles under the subdivision is, for Part IIIA purposes, to divide the original land parcel into two or more assets (viz., the subdivided blocks). The subdivided blocks are then treated as separate assets under the capital gains provisions. They are taken to have been acquired by the owner of the original land parcel when that original parcel was acquired.
3. We consider that the 'split asset' view is the correct view because it recognises that the land owner has assets after the subdivision which can be dealt with separately. Also, title to the original land parcel, on subdivision, will often cease to exist. The original asset has been divided into two or more assets (the subdivided blocks).
4. If an original land parcel is divided into two or more blocks without any change in beneficial ownership, subsections 160ZH(12) and (13) provide that the relevant cost base (e.g., indexed cost base) of the original asset is, to such extent as is reasonable, included in the relevant cost bases of the subdivided blocks.
5. The consequences above should be contrasted with a situation where a person disposes of an interest in land. For example, a person may dispose of a 50% interest in land the person owns. 'Land' is defined in subsection 160K(1) to include a legal or equitable estate or interest in land. The disposal of the 50% interest in the land constitutes a disposal of part of the land to which sections 160R and section 160ZI apply.
Example 1 Albert subdivides land, which he purchased in 1986 for $150,000, into 5 blocks of equal size and value. On the registration of new titles, the original asset (the land) is 'split' into 5 separate assets for CGT purposes (i.e., the subdivided blocks). In this case it would be reasonable to attribute $30,000 of the original cost to each block. Albert then sells one block for $200,000. Ignoring indexation and incidental costs, a capital gain of $170,000 (i.e., $200,000 less $30,000) would accrue to Albert on the disposal.
Example 2 John subdivides his post-CGT land into two new blocks with a view to selling one and retaining the other. He incurs the following costs:survey fees; legal fees; subdivision application fees; and cost of connecting electricity and water only to the subdivided block to be sold.John includes all of these costs in the relevant cost base of the block to be sold. We consider that this is not a reasonable apportionment. It is reasonable to apportion the survey, legal and subdivision application fees over both blocks. If the blocks are of unequal market value, an apportionment of costs in proportion to the market value of the blocks would usually be a reasonable apportionment. As the cost of connecting the electricity and water relates only to the block to be sold, it would be reasonable to attribute this cost solely to the cost base of this block.A reasonable apportionment of the cost of the land itself can usually be achieved on an area basis if all the land is of similar market value or on a relative market value basis if this is not the case.
Example 3 Jane purchases one hectare of land in 1992. Part of the land is a good quality building block (one-quarter of a hectare) worth 75% of the total market value of the property. The balance of the land is low-lying flood-plain. In 1995, Jane subdivides off the flood-plain. It would be reasonable in the circumstances to apportion 75% of the original acquisition cost of the property to the 'building block' and 25% to the 'flood-plain'.
Commissioner of Taxation
22 January 1997
NO CGT Cell (CGDET 120); NAT 96/7145-5
interest in land;