ATO Interpretative Decision

ATO ID 2001/93 (Withdrawn)

Income Tax

Depreciation: Rental Property (Shower Screen)
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you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed.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

Whether depreciation on a shower screen in the taxpayer's rental property is an allowable deduction under section 42-15 (Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)).

Decision

No. Depreciation is not allowable in respect of the shower screen under section 42-15 (ITAA 1997).

Facts

The taxpayer purchases a home unit as a rental property. The bathroom has a floor to ceiling glass shower screen with an outward opening door. The screen is fixed permanently to the floor and ceiling and cannot be removed easily without damage to it or the floor or ceiling.

Reasons For Decision

Section 42-15 (ITAA 1997) allows depreciation for plant owned and used, or installed for use, in the production of assessable income.

The question of whether depreciation can be claimed for a shower screen is dependant on whether the item can be categorised as 'plant'.

Whether an item is 'plant' is not primarily a question of law, though it involves an understanding of the law, but the question is primarily one of fact and degree (Carpentaria Transport Pty Ltd v FCT (1990) 21 ATR 513; 90 ATC 4590).

Generally, when determining whether or not an item can be categorised as 'plant', consideration is given to the nature and function of the item in question ('functional test').

The concept of 'setting' is a crucial aspect of the 'functional test' in that those items which are an 'integral part' of the property as a residential unit, or which form part of the 'fabric' of such property are not 'plant' (Case 101 (1964) 11 CTBR (NS); Case 11/97 97 ATC 173; (1997) 35 ATR 1022).

In considering whether an item is 'plant' or 'setting' for letting purposes, the questions that need to be answered are:

(i)
whether the item forms part of the 'fabric' of the property (is an integral part of the structure of the premises), and whether it is able to perform a function independent of, and isolated from, the general function of the building to which it is attached; and
(ii)
whether the function performed by the thing is so related to the taxpayer's operations or special that it warrants it being held to be plant. That is, does the item perform a function sufficiently related to the leased residence?

Relevant to this determination is the extent to which an item can be removed from its setting and put in another setting without damage to the item or the original setting.

Also relevant, is the extent to which an item is an 'integral' or 'essential' part of the 'complete' setting.

In this case, the shower screen is fixed permanently to the floor and ceiling and cannot be easily removed without damage to it or the floor or ceiling. It can therefore be considered to form part of the infrastructure of the bathroom which in turn is seen as part of the infrastructure of the unit as a complete lettable entity.

On this basis, the shower screen is not plant but is considered part of the 'setting; of the income earning activity and as such would not be depreciable in terms of 42-15 (ITAA 1997).

Date of decision:  21 March 2000

Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
   Section 42-15

Case References:
Carpentaria Transport Pty Ltd v FCT
   (1990) 21 ATR 513
   90 ATC 4590

Case 101
   (1964) 11 CTBR (NS)

Case 11/97
   97 ATC 173
   (1997) 35 ATR 1022

Keywords
Deductions and expenses
Depreciation
Depreciable plant and articles
Rental property
Building write-off

Business Line:  Small Business/Individual Taxpayers

Date of publication:  3 July 2001

ISSN: 1445-2782

history
  Date: Version:
  21 March 2000 Original statement
You are here 9 June 2006 Archived

Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).