| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1011869762300
This edited version of your ruling will be published in the public Register of private binding rulings after 28 days from the issue date of the ruling. The attached private rulings fact sheet has more information.
Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.
Ruling
Subject: international voyages
Question
Would unintentional change to two particular international travels affect their GST treatment?
Answer
No, the unintentional change to the two particular international trips will not affect their GST treatment.
Relevant facts and circumstances
You are registered for GST and supply international travels.
On two particular international travels, there were some mechanical problems with the vessel. Hence, the vessel could not cross into international zones to proceed to a foreign destination, but did continue the travel along the Australian zone to the other scheduled stopovers.
Reasons for the decision:
Your international travels are ticketed as international travels between Australia and a foreign destination.
On two particular trips, there were mechanical problems with the vessel, which prevented the vessel from crossing into international zones to proceed to a foreign destination. In this instance, we take the approach of ATOID 2006/114, which considers if excise duty is payable on carriers stores that are consumed during an aborted international trip. It stated that: 'it is reasonable to accept that where a vessel leaves a destination with the genuine intention of undertaking an overseas trip, it is an overseas vessel under the definition of 'ship' in the Customs Act, notwithstanding the fact that at some point, through misadventure or some other eventuality, it has to turn around.' The definition of 'ship' in the Customs Act refers to international voyage.
Further, Goods and Services Tax Ruling GSTR 2005/2 made the following point (although it relates to goods, the principle could be applied):
59. If there is a genuine intention when the supply is made, supported by documentary evidence, that the goods are destined for a place outside Australia, but the intention later changes such that the goods do not depart Australia, the requirement that the goods had a destination outside Australia is met. That is, the item requires the intended destination to be a place outside Australia. However, the absence of actual departure of the goods may be evidence that the intended destination was not outside Australia.
Accordingly, the two particular trips would remain international voyages, even if there were unintentional changes to the scheduled international voyages.
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).
