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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1012362157222

Ruling

Subject: GST and sale of property

Question

Was the sale of Property Z a GST-free supply of farmland under section 38-480 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act)?

Advice

Yes, the sale of the Property Z was a GST-free supply of farmland under section 38-480 of the GST Act.

Relevant facts

Entity X (In Liquidation) (Entity X) was incorporated in Australia and is 100% owned by Entity B. Entity X is registered for GST.

On YYYY, liquidators were appointed to Entity X by way of resolution of creditors pursuant to section 439C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Entity X owned a number of properties in Australia. One of the properties leased to Entity B was Property Z.

Entity X acquired Property Z from a farmer on YYYY. The farmer operated a cattle breeding and fattening and cane farming business on Property Z for more than five years continuously and up to the date of the settlement of the sale of property Z to Entity X.

A Managed Investment Scheme (MIS) project was conducted on Property Z after its purchase by Entity X and the Responsible Entity (RE) for the MIS was entity B. The MIS involved the growing of specific trees and the MIS was managed by staff employed by Entity X and by outside contractors engaged by Entity B.

Following the appointment of the liquidators, minimal work was undertaken to the firebreaks by the liquidators, and there were no management contracts in place with other entities in respect of the maintenance of Property Z.

The liquidators of Entity X issued Entity B with a 'Notice to Remedy Breach of Covenant' in respect of its failure to establish, tend and manage the plantation crop on Property Z.

Entity Z, an unrelated third party, received sufficient votes in favour of its proposal to replace Entity B as the RE for the Schemes.

The liquidators engaged Entity A to complete an inspection of the properties leased to Entity Z and to confirm if the breaches specified in the default notices previously served on Entity B, had been remedied. The report indicated that the breaches had not been remedied and further default notices were issued to Entity Z.

Under the revised default notices, Entity Z was required to remedy the breaches by a specified date. After that specified date, Entity A undertook a further inspection of the properties to confirm whether Entity Z had remedied the breaches. The report for this inspection was finalised and confirmed that although maintenance had been completed on a number of properties, all of the properties continued to be in varying degrees of default.

Entity Z disputed Entity A's assessment and subsequently engaged its own expert to complete a further assessment of the properties.

As the reports conflicted on certain issues, the liquidators negotiated with Entity Z with a view to reaching a commercial outcome that would avoid the incurring of significant costs in litigating the matter.

The arrangement that was considered most effective included that the head leases be terminated over certain properties, including Property Z, and that these properties be sold on an unencumbered basis by the liquidators of Entity X.

The lease to Entity Z, in respect of Property Z, was removed from the title.

The liquidators then entered into an Asset Sale Agreement (the Agreement) for the sale of Property Z. The Buyer is registered for GST.

Prior to completion of the sale of Property Z the Buyer's solicitor faxed a letter to Entity X's solicitor confirming that the Buyer intended to continue using the land for a farming business.

Completion of the sale of Property Z took place and the Buyer paid the GST-exclusive purchase price to acquire Property Z.

Relevant legislative provisions

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Section 9-5;

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Subsection 38-475(2);

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Section 38-480.

Reasons for decision

An entity ('you') is liable to pay GST for taxable supplies that you make. Under section 9-5 of the GST Act, you make a taxable supply if:

However, the supply is not a taxable supply to the extent that it is GST-free or input taxed.

The sale of Property Z by Entity X under the Asset Sale Agreement satisfied the requirements of paragraphs 9-5(a) to 9-5(d) of the GST Act as:

However, the supply of Property Z would not be a taxable supply to the extent that it was GST-free or input taxed.

The supply of Property Z was not input taxed under the GST Act. The next step is to determine whether the supply of Property Z was GST-free.

GST-free

Section 38-480 of the GST Act provides that the supply of a freehold interest in, or the lease by an Australian government agency of or the long term lease of, land is GST-free if:

Section 195-1 of the GST Act states that 'farming business' has the meaning given by subsection 38-475(2) of the GST Act.

Subsection 38-475(2) of the GST Act provides that an entity carries on a farming business if it carries on a business of:

We will now consider whether the sale of Property Z satisfied the two requirements in section 38-480 of the GST Act.

Paragraph 38-480(a) of the GST Act

Paragraph 38-480(a) of the GST Act requires that a farming business has been carried on on the relevant land. It does not require that the supplier carries on a farming business on the land.

A MIS was undertaken on the land and involved growing specific trees. A tree growing business meets paragraph 35-475(2)(d) of the definition of a farming business.

In addition for paragraph 38-40(a) of the GST Act to be satisfied, the farming business must have been carried on for at least 5 years preceding the supply.

Goods and Services Tax Determination GSTD 2011/2 provides that a farming business can be carried on, where there has been a cessation of routine farming activities by the supplier for a period of time as a consequence of a decision to sell the land. Paragraph 6 of GSTD 2011/2 states:

Further chapter 6.2.1(b) of the Primary Production Industry Partnership Issues Register states:

From the information received, the farmer carried on cattle breeding and fattening and cane farming on Property Z for more than 5 years continuously and up to the date they sold the land to entity X. Cattle breeding and fattening and cane farming fall within paragraphs 38-475(2)(b) and 38-475(2)(a) of the farming business definition respectively. After the purchase of Property Z by Entity X, a farming business was carried on on the land since a tree growing business was conducted on Property Z. Accordingly, we consider a farming business was carried on for at least five years preceding the sale of Property Z to the Buyer under the Asset Sale Agreement.

We note that there was minimal management done on Property Z by the RE after the liquidators were appointed but this did not mean that the farming business had ceased. Similarly when the lease to Entity Z was removed from the title this did not result in the cessation of the farming business being carried on on the land. The lease was removed so that Property Z could be sold hence it was something done in the course of terminating the farming business.

Accordingly, paragraph 38-480(a) of the GST Act was satisfied since a farming business was carried on for at least 5 years preceding the sale to the Buyer under the Asset Sale Agreement.

Paragraph 38-480(b) of the GST Act

Paragraph 38-480(b) of GST Act requires that the recipient of the supply intends that a farming business be carried on, on the land.

Chapter 6.2.4 of the Primary Production Industry Partnership Issues Register states:

The Buyer's solicitor had advised prior to settlement of the property that the Buyer intended to use the land to carry on a farming business. Accordingly, the requirement in paragraph 38-480(b) of the GST Act was satisfied.

Summary

In summary, the sale of Property Z by Entity X under the Asset Sale Agreement was a GST-free supply of farm land under section 38-480 of the GST Act as all the requirements in that section were met based on the information received.


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).