Disclaimer
This edited version will be removed from the Database after 30 June 2026. If you believe the issues detailed in this edited version warrant retention in an alternative form, email publicguidance@ato.gov.au

This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication. It should not be regarded as indicative of the ATO's current views. The law may have changed since original publication, and views in the edited version may also be affected by subsequent precedents and new approaches to the application of the law.

You cannot rely on this record in your tax affairs. It is not binding and provides you with no protection (including from any underpaid tax, penalty or interest). In addition, this record is not an authority for the purposes of establishing a reasonably arguable position for you to apply to your own circumstances. For more information on the status of edited versions of private advice and reasons we publish them, see PS LA 2008/4.

Edited version of private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1011825967741

Ruling

Subject: Rental property expenses

Question:

Is the remediation of the retaining walls located at your rental property a repair and is the expenditure incurred deductible?

Answer: Yes

This ruling applies for the following periods:

Year ended 30 June 2009

Year ended 30 June 2010

The scheme commences on:

1 July 2008

Relevant facts and circumstances

In early 2008 you received an Enforcement Notice from your local council in relation to the retaining walls situated on the land of your rental property.

The Enforcement Notice deemed the structure dangerous and required you to consult a professional engineer and carry out the necessary repairs to the retaining walls.

The engineer recommended that the retaining walls (or part thereof) are to be removed and reconstructed.

The following options were given:

Subsequent to the above, anchoring and retaining wall stabilization was chosen to be done. You have provided a detailed list of the scope of work carried out.

In relation to the work undertaken you have provided the following information:

As described by the engineer "the objective of the task was to get the retaining walls stable and to do the minimum work possible to achieve a slab surface suitable for cars, without particularly needing to produce a slab that looks good."

You have specified the expenses you incurred to remediate the retaining wall during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years.

You believe that:

In late 2009 the council revoked its Enforcement Notice as the work had been completed to their satisfaction.

Reasons for decision

Section 25-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) allows a deduction for the cost of repairs to premises used for income producing purposes.

Subsection 25-10(3) of the ITAA 1997 precludes a deduction for repairs where the expenditure is of a capital nature.

The word 'repair' is not defined within the tax legislation. Accordingly, it takes its ordinary meaning. 'Repair' involves a restoration of a thing to a condition it formerly had without changing its character (W Thomas & Co v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 115 CLR 58.

Taxation Ruling TR 97/23 deals with the issue of deductions for repairs.

TR 97/23 provides that expenditure for repairs to property is of a capital nature where the extent of the work carried out represents a renewal or reconstruction of the entirety (paragraphs 36-42), or the works result in a greater efficiency of function in the property, therefore representing an 'improvement' rather than a 'repair' (paragraphs 44-58).

Taxation Ruling TR 97/23 states:

An 'entirety' is defined as something 'separately identifiable as a principal item of capital equipment' (Lindsay v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1960) 106 CLR 377 at 385).

In Case S13 85 ATC 171 (Cases 13), two retaining walls were built on a rental property to prevent soil erosion. Following storm damage, the walls were replaced in a different location with walls that were higher, stronger and of different material. The expenditure incurred for constructing the new walls was held to be an improvement to a fixed capital asset and not repairs.

In your case, the anchoring and the stabilization of the retaining walls does not go beyond what is a repair, as the location, height and length of the wall were unchanged. The works carried out represent a repair to a substantial part of the wall as a result of deterioration of the wall over time.

Accordingly, the expenditures incurred for remediation of the retaining walls are considered to be repairs and not an improvement of a capital nature.


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).