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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1012373517489

Ruling

Subject: Goods and services tax apportionment method

Question

Is Entity A's revenue method apportionment (as set out in the facts) to determine the extent of creditable purpose (ECP) for general acquisitions considered fair and reasonable?

Answer

Yes. Entity A's revenue method apportionment to determine the ECP for general acquisitions is considered fair and reasonable in accordance with the Commissioner's view in Goods and Services Tax Ruling: GSTR 2006/3: Goods and services tax: determining the extent of creditable purpose for providers of financial supplies (GSTR 2006/3).

Relevant facts

Entity A makes supplies that are taxable supplies, GST-free supplies and input taxed supplies to its customers (members).

Whilst all products and services are provided for consideration, certain products supplied by Entity A do have features that are provided for no specified charge.

As part of a commercial decision making process the pricing model used by Entity A takes into consideration 'fee free' products.

The revenue received from taxable supplies provided by Entity A does not cross-subsidise 'fee free' features provided to members on input taxed products or services.

Entity A is registered for GST and at all times has exceeded the Financial Acquisition Threshold (FAT).

Apportionment Methodology

Entity A makes acquisitions that relate to both input taxed financial supplies and taxable (and GST-free) supplies and as such it is required to develop a suitable apportionment methodology to determine its ECP.

Entity A has historically used an entity based general revenue formula apportionment method (revenue method) to determine its ECP for general acquisitions.

Where Entity A makes an acquisition that relates solely to making input taxed supplies, the acquisition is not made for a creditable purpose and Entity A will apply an ECP of 0%, except to the extent that a reduced input tax credit of 75% is available or to the extent that the 'borrowing exception' applies from 1 July 2012.

Where Entity A makes an acquisition that solely relates to making taxable (and GST-free) supplies, the acquisition is made for a creditable purpose and Entity A will apply an ECP of 100%.

For all general acquisition that relate to supplies that are both input taxed and taxable (GST-free) supplies, Entity A is proposing to use the following revenue based formula:

The revenue based formula used by Entity A:

Additional Information

This private ruling does not address Entity A's entitlement to any reduced input tax credits, or the application of paragraph 11-15(5)(a) of the GST Act to Entity's circumstances. In addition it has not sought to determine whether Entity A has correctly classified the revenue category of the supplies made as input taxed, GST-free and taxable.

This ruling is limited to determining whether the proposed revenue method set out above is fair and reasonable according to the principles outlined in GSTR 2006/3.

Relevant legislative provisions

Section 11-5 of the GST Act

Section 11-15 of the GST Act

Section 11-20 of the GST Act

Reasons for decision

Division 11 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act) deals with entitlement to input tax credits. Section 11-20 provides that an entitlement to an input tax credit arises for any creditable acquisition made by an entity. The term creditable acquisition is defined by section 11-5 which states:

Relevantly, a creditable acquisition is one which is acquired solely or partly for a creditable purpose. Section 11-15 of the GST Act states:

Accordingly, Entity A acquires a thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that it acquires the thing in carrying on its enterprise.

In this case Entity A has exceeded the financial acquisitions threshold provided for in subsection 11-15(4) of the GST Act and therefore it does not acquire a thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that the acquisition relates to making supplies that would be input taxed.

Based on the facts, Entity A's enterprise involves it making a combination of:

Where acquisitions made by Entity A are used or intended to be used only for a creditable purpose, such acquisitions are fully creditable and do not require apportionment. Based on the facts Entity A has adopted such an approach in the apportionment methodology.

Similarly, where acquisitions made by Entity A are used or intended to be used only for a non-creditable purpose, these acquisitions are not fully creditable and Entity A does not claim input tax credits in relation to these acquisitions, except to the extent that a reduced input tax credit is available, or to the extent the that the 'borrowing exception' under 11-15(5) of the GST Act applies.

However, there are acquisitions made by Entity A that are both for a creditable purpose (that is, for making GST-free or taxable supplies) and an input taxed purpose (that is, making financial supplies). Accordingly, these acquisitions are partly creditable.

In respect of such acquisitions, the amount of input tax credits to which Entity A is entitled depends upon the extent of creditable purpose as provided for in section 11-30 of the GST Act. The phrase extent of creditable purpose is defined in subsection 11-30(3) to mean the extent to which the creditable acquisition is for a creditable purpose, expressed as a percentage of the total purpose of the acquisition. On this basis an apportionment of these acquisitions would need to be made by Entity A to determine their extent of creditable purpose.

Goods and Services Tax Ruling GSTR 2006/3: Goods and Services Tax: determining the extent of creditable purpose for providers of financial supplies (GSTR 2006/3) outlines the Commissioner's views on apportionment and the methods of calculating the extent of creditable purpose of an entity's acquisitions or importations.

Paragraphs 33 and 73 of GSTR 2006/3 make it clear that the method chosen to allocate or apportion acquisitions between creditable and non-creditable purpose needs to:

Accordingly, the apportionment method adopted must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances of Entity A's enterprise and must appropriately reflect the intended or actual use of its acquisitions or importations.

Paragraphs 81 and 103 of GSTR 2006/3 explore the Commissioner's view on direct and indirect methods of estimation and circumstances where these methods may be considered appropriate:

Further paragraph 105 to 107 of GSTR 2006/3 considers the use by an entity of an entity based general formula. These paragraphs state:

Application of the GST Law to Entity A's circumstances

Consistent with the above paragraphs the Commissioner will accept any basis of apportionment of acquisitions which are applied indifferently to all supplies made, provided it is fair and reasonable in the individual circumstances.

In this case, Entity A proposes to use a revenue based formula as its indirect estimation method. This formula identifies the revenue from supplies Entity A makes as part of its business activities as the basis for calculating the extent of creditable purpose.

We consider that the theoretical aspect of Entity A's GST apportionment method is fair and reasonable, and reflects the intended use of the acquisitions in their circumstances. Therefore, provided the practical application does not result in a distortive outcome, we consider the method used by Entity A falls within the ambit of being fair and reasonable in accordance with GSTR 2006/3.

Our acceptance of the apportionment methodology is based on the facts presented to us. However, if those circumstances change, Entity A may be required to review this methodology to determine if it remains fair and reasonable and accurately reflects the intended use of its acquisitions.


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).