ATO Interpretative Decision
ATO ID 2002/402
Income Tax
Income tax: Embezzlement/fraud/defalcation by partner - deductibility of expenditure.FOI status: may be released
This version is no longer current. Please follow this link to view the current version. |
-
This document incorporates revisions made since original publication. View its history and amending notices, if applicable.
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you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed.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 expenditure incurred by the partnership in the form of legal fees and investigation fees to ascertain the details and extent of the fraud by its partner is deductible under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?
Decision
Expenditure incurred by the partnership in the form of legal fees and investigation fees to ascertain the details and extent of the fraud by its partner is not deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997.
Facts
The taxpayer is a partner of a partnership providing specialised services through offices in Australia.
During a review of the partnership accounts, it was discovered that a partner of the taxpayer had been engaged in fraudulent conduct with regard to out of pocket expenses over a number of periods.
The taxpayer engaged forensic accountants to investigate the transactions. A comprehensive review was undertaken of all client ledgers for which the fraudulent partner was responsible or in respect of which he had some involvement during the relevant period. Where client files had been closed and archived, these were re-opened and included as part of the investigation. Legal advice was also sought on the manner in which issues arising from the fraud should be dealt with. The cost of the investigation and legal advice has been included as an expense in the partnership's Profit & Loss Statement for the year in question.
Reasons for Decision
To be deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA1997 the expense must be incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income and not be capital, private or domestic in nature.
In Hallstroms Pty Ltd v. FC of T (1946) 72 CLR 634, Dixon J at 647 stated that 'legal expenses ... take the quality of an outgoing of a capital nature or of an outgoing on account of revenue from the cause or purpose of incurring the expenditure. We are, therefore, remitted to a consideration of the object in view when the legal proceedings were undertaken, or of the situation which impelled the taxpayer to undertake them.'
Here, the investigation and legal fees were incurred to determine the exact nature and extent of the fraud. The expenditure also served the purpose of preserving the firm's reputation, both with existing and potential clients. In Ash's case, Latham CJ at 275 expressed the view that although the ultimate purpose of the payments to the defrauded clients may have been to preserve the credit of the taxpayer and so maintain the business as a profit-earning enterprise, this feature did not deprive them of their capital nature.
In Smithkline Beecham Laboratories (Australia) Ltd v. FCT (1993) 26 ATR 260 at 265 - 266, Hill J stated that expenditure incurred to preserve or protect a business as such will ordinarily be expenditure of capital. Here, the investigation and legal expenses were incurred to preserve the firm's reputation with existing and potential clients. The expenditure was incurred for the purpose of securing an enduring benefit to the firm, namely its client base, and is therefore capital in nature.
Therefore, the purpose of the legal expenditure, being to preserve the reputation of the firm, was primarily a capital expense. The expenses were in large a measure to protect an enduring benefit. In the circumstances the expenditure in relation to both the forensic accountants and the legal expenses for the purpose of meeting the fraud are of a capital nature and therefore non-deductible.
Date of decision: 14 March 2002Year of income: Year ended 30 June 2001
Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Subsection 8-1(1)
Case References:
Hallstroms Pty Ltd v. FC of T
72 CLR 634
26 ATR 260
Keywords
Losses from fraud, theft & embezzlement
ISSN: 1445-2782
| Date: | Version: | |
| You are here | 14 March 2002 | Original statement |
| 6 March 2015 | Updated statement |
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).
