ATO Interpretative Decision
ATO ID 2003/148
Uniform Capital Allowances
Capital Allowances: 'reasonable to expect' to hold a depreciating assetFOI 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This version is no longer current.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you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed.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
Is the 'reasonable to expect' test contained in Item 6 of the hold table in section 40-40 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) satisfied by the particular call option the lessee holds under their lease?
Decision
Yes. The 'reasonable to expect' test contained in Item 6 of the hold table in section 40-40 of the ITAA 1997 is satisfied by the particular call option held by the lessee under their lease because of the nature of the call option and the weighting of factors influencing the lessee to exercise the option.
Facts
The taxpayer (the lessee) purchased a depreciating asset which they immediately sold to and leased back from an unrelated entity (the lessor). Other relevant features of the arrangement are:
- •
- the taxpayer maintains possession of the asset at all times;
- •
- the asset is a chattel;
- •
- the taxpayer holds a call option over the asset which is exercisable at the end of the lease;
- •
- the lessor holds a put option over the asset which is exercisable at the end of the lease;
- •
- the asset is specifically adapted to the special requirements of the taxpayer;
- •
- the asset is likely to have a market value at the option time significantly in excess of the call option price; and
- •
- the taxpayer has a history of entering into similar arrangements for similar assets where the taxpayer has almost always exercised their call option to purchase the leased asset.
Reason for Decision
Division 40 of the ITAA 1997 provides a deduction for the decline in value of a depreciating asset a taxpayer holds to the extent the asset is used for a taxable purpose (section 40-25 of the ITAA 1997). The table in section 40-40 of the ITAA 1997 identifies the holder of a depreciating asset in any particular circumstance. The basic (or default) rule is that the taxpayer holds if they are the owner of the asset (Item 10 of the table in section 40-40 of ITAA 1997). However, there are items that identify a holder in various other circumstances even though they are not the asset's owner.
One of these circumstances is contained in Item 6 of the table in section 40-40 of ITAA 1997 and applies where:
- •
- a taxpayer has possession, or an immediate right to possession, of the asset combined with a right, the exercise of which would make them the holder (e.g. an option to acquire); and
- •
- it is 'reasonable to expect' that the taxpayer will become the holder by exercising that right or that the asset will be disposed of at their direction and for their benefit.
The reasonable to expect test is satisfied in these particular circumstances because:
- •
- an independent assessment suggests that the asset is likely to have a market value at the option time significantly in excess of the call option price, particularly because of the favourable price at which the asset was first acquired; and
- •
- the taxpayer has a history of entering into similar lease arrangements for similar assets where the taxpayer has almost always exercised their call option to purchase the leased asset because of the taxpayer's operational requirements; and
- •
- the taxpayer's operational requirements have been consistent over a considerable period of time and there is nothing to suggest this pattern will change.
The fact that the lessor holds a put option over the asset is not, of itself, relevant to whether the taxpayer's particular circumstances satisfy the 'reasonable to expect' test because the put option is not a right held by the lessee.
Date of decision: 11 December 2002Year of income: Year ended 30 June 2003
Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Section 40-25
Item 6 of the table in section 40-40
Item 10 of the table in section 40-40
Keywords
Capital Allowance CoE
Economic Holder
Hold a depreciating asset
Lease financing
Reasonable to expect
Uniform capital allowances system
ISSN: 1445-2782
| Date: | Version: | |
| You are here → | 11 December 2002 | Original statement |
| 23 December 2005 | 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).
