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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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 your private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1012358875962

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. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.

Ruling

Subject: GST and nominal consideration

Question 1

Is the methodology you proposes to use to determine the cost of supply acceptable for the purposes of section 38-250 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act)?

Answer

No, the apportionment of capital costs and the particular premises is not a fair and reasonable method of apportionment for the purposes of section 38-250 of the GST Act. See detailed reasoning.

.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010

The scheme commences on:

1 July 2009

Relevant facts and circumstances

· You have calculated 75% of the total cost of supply of the various X and compared this to the standard price.

Relevant legislative provisions

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 - Subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii)

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 - Section 38-250

Reasons for decision

Supplies by endorsed charities and deductible gift recipients for nominal consideration

A supply made by an endorsed charity or a deductible gift recipient is GST-free under subsection 38-250(1) of the GST Act if the supply is for consideration that:

A supply made by an endorsed charity or a deductible gift recipient is also GST-free under subsection 38-250(2) of the GST Act if the supply is for consideration that:

Cost of supply guidelines

When calculating the cost of providing something an endorsed charity or a deductible gift recipient should include:

For supplies of things other than accommodation only those amounts paid or payable may be included in the calculation. This is due to the wording in subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act which states that it is the consideration the supplier provided or was liable to provide for acquiring the thing supplied.

The following things cannot be included because they do not involve an actual outlay by the supplier:

Option 1

Where a supplier makes different classes of supplies, in determining the cost of making a supply under subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act the supplier should:

Option 2

Alternatively for each class of supplies, the supplier can also determine the cost of making a supply under subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act by:

For guidance, the Goods and Services Tax Industry Issue: Charities Consultative Committee Non-commercial activities of charities, cost of supply and market value tests (the CCC document) at Section E provides examples of using the above methodologies for organisations in the cultural and performing arts sector making supplies of tickets to concerts and performances.

Section E also explains that an endorsed charitable institution or a deductible gift recipient making different types or classes of supplies can choose which of the above two options to use in determining the cost of making a supply.

Your application of the methodology to determine cost of supply

You advised that you make supplies of X.

In the 2010 financial year you used the following methodology to determine the cost of making each supply of X:

You determined the direct cost of staff wages and super for staff working with X for sale. You then determined the percentage of wages and super for staff working with X for sale as a percentage of total wages and super for your organisation. You have not supplied any details of how you have identified the staff working with X for sale and thus the cost of wages and super of those staff. As you have not provided details of how you determined the direct cost of staff working with X for sale we are not in a position to provide any advice on whether the methodology you have applied is acceptable for the purpose of section 38-250 of the GST Act.

Further, you have determined that staff working with X for sale, spend 70% of their time in actual dealing with X, with the balance spent on training and other administrative issues. If these training and other administrative activities of staff are a part of their duties dealing with X, then 100% of their wages and super costs may be included as a cost of making the supply of X for sale, under section 38-250 of the GST Act.

You have determined the percentage of X sold as a percentage of total X. This is acceptable for the purposes of section 38-250 of the GST Act.

When apportioning the costs between the various supplies, the cost must be directly related to the supply and any apportionment must be made on a reasonable basis. To the extent that the costs are not directly related to the supply in question or the basis of apportioning the cost is unreasonable, the consideration for that supply must be adjusted accordingly.

The concept of apportioning costs to recognise the underlying supply being made is outlined in paragraph 75 of Goods and Services Tax Ruling GSTR 2006/3 where it considers the application of a fair and reasonable method to determine input tax credits and states;

Paragraph 76 of GSTR 2006/3 provides an example for paragraph 75:

The Commissioner states in paragraph 77 of GSTR 2006/3 that the principles in the BNZ case are relevant in considering the apportionment methodologies:

As outlined in paragraph 103 of GSTR 2006/3 indirect estimation methods may be appropriate in circumstances where there are overhead expenses that are not directly referable to particular supplies or activities. However, in all cases where indirect methods are used, the method chosen should be fair and reasonable in the context of your enterprise.

Examples of indirect methods which may be appropriate are outlines in GSTR 2006/3 and include the following:

You have allocated 36% of overhead costs such as electricity, heating, uniforms, telephone and rent to indirect costs for X available for sale. You have based your allocation of the overheads as the percentage of staff working with X compared to the total salaries of your organisation. This indirect method may be appropriate in your circumstances if the staff costs are an appropriate measure of the income and expenses related to the supply of X for sale. However without further details of the relationship between staff costs and overheads, we can not determine whether the methodology you have applied is fair and reasonable and therefore acceptable for the purpose of section 38-250 of the GST Act.

You have allocated 95% of the cost of a particular product is in relation to the supply of X. This is based on a direct estimation method which is appropriate in your circumstances and therefore acceptable for the purposes of section 38-250 of the GST Act.

You have allocated 25% of the capital costs to the supply of X which you have based on area occupied by the buildings that you use for X for sale and the balance of the area is for administration purposes and car parking. This is a direct basis of apportionment and it would be an appropriate basis of apportionment as long as the cost is directly related to the supply and any apportionment made is on a reasonable basis.

For the 2009/10 financial year the capital costs incurred relate to the acquisition of a number of items for certain X. You have allocated 25% of this cost to the indirect costs of X for sale and allocated a portion to each X type sold based on a percentage of X sold. As a result you have allocated a portion of the cost to certain X supply, to other X for sale. This is not a fair and reasonable basis of apportionment as the cost is for items for a certain X and therefore a direct cost for that X. Therefore the capital cost in this case should only be taken into account in calculating the cost of certain X and not allocated other X . This has distorted your figures for all your supplies of X. Therefore for the 2009/10 financial year, the methodology you have used in the allocation of capital costs to X for sale is not acceptable for the purpose of section 38-250 of the GST Act.

Australian Taxation Office Interpretative Decision ATO ID 2012/78 provides guidance to endorsed charities or gift deductible entities on how the consideration provided for acquiring capital items is taken into account in calculating the cost of making a supply in a period under subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act.

As provided in ATO ID 2012/78, for the purpose of calculating the cost of making a supply in a period, you can include as the cost of acquiring a capital item:

In either case, an apportionment of the consideration provided is required if the capital item is not used solely for the making of the supplies in the period.

You have incurred rent cost, which is rent of demountable buildings used for activities related to certain X. You have apportioned 36% of this rent cost to the cost of supply of X for sale. However, as the demountable buildings are only used for the activities relating to certain X, this cost can only be taken into account in calculating the cost of supply of certain X and is not a cost for the supply of all X for sale. Therefore for the 2009/10 financial year, the methodology you have used in the allocation of rent cost to X for sale is not acceptable for the purpose of section 38-250 of the GST Act.

Based on the figures calculated by you for the 2019/10 financial year, you have determined the consideration provided for X and have compared this as a percentage of the sales price to determine if the supply of an X is less than 75% of the consideration provided.

As we have a number of concerns on the methodology you propose to use to determine the cost of supply for the acquisition of X you supply in the 2009/10 financial year, we have determined that the methodology is not acceptable for the purpose of sub-paragraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act.

Based of your methodology you have determined that some X you supply are GST-free as they are for consideration that is less than 75% of the consideration you provided (as calculated by you) for acquiring X under subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act. However you have stated that you have reported all your supplies of X on your activity statement as GST-free.

As you do not supply all your X for a nominal consideration under subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act, and as the methodology you propose to use to determine the cost of supply of X you acquire is not acceptable under subparagraph 38-250(2)(b)(ii) of the GST Act, not all your supplies of X are GST-free. You need to remit GST on your taxable supplies of X.

Disclaimer

You cannot rely on the rulings in the Register of private binding rulings in your tax affairs. You can only rely on a private ruling that we have given to you or to someone acting on your behalf.

The Register of private binding rulings is a public record of private rulings issued by the ATO. The register is an historical record of rulings, and we do not update it to reflect changes in the law or our policies.

The rulings in the register have been edited and may not contain all the factual details relevant to each decision. Do not use the register to predict ATO policy or decisions.


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).