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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1012382315473

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: Proposed deed of assignment

Question 1

Will the entry into the proposed Deed have the effect and result of the occurrence of CGT event D1?

Answer

No.

This ruling applies for the following period:

Year ending 30 June 20XX

The scheme commences on:

1 July 20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances

This ruling is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme that is set out below. If your circumstances are materially different from these facts, this ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on your private ruling.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 104-35(1)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 104-35(2)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 104-35(3)

Property Law Act 1969 (WA) Section 20

Reasons for decision

Question 1

Summary

Entry into the proposed Deed will not trigger CGT event D1 because perfecting an equitable assignment that took place in 2007 does not create a new right in the assignee.

Detailed reasoning

Capital gains tax

Subsection 104-35(1) states:

Subsection 104-35(2) states:

Subsection 104-35(3) states:

Choses in action

A chose in action was defined by Channell J in Torkington v Magee [1902] 2 KB 427, at 430, as:

A right to receive royalties is a chose in action.

Legal assignment

Section 20 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) sets out the requirements for a valid assignment of a legal chose in action, i.e. an assignment of an abstract form of property such as a right to royalties, in Western Australia.

Section 20 states:

For the purposes of this section any debt or other legal chose in action includes a part of any debt or other legal chose in action."

If the formalities in section 20 are observed (namely, the assignment is in writing, is signed by the assignor personally and notice of the assignment is given to the debtor or trustee), no consideration is required for a valid assignment of the chose in action.

Section 20 allows an assignee of a legal chose in action to sue an assignor's debtor for breach of the chose in the assignee's own name.

Equitable Assignment

Where valuable consideration is given for an assignment or an agreement to assign, equity will give effect to the transaction despite the assignor's failure to comply with the requisite formalities. Part of a chose in action can be assigned in equity if there is a clear expression of intention by the assignor to make an immediate disposition.

Agreements to Assign Part of a Chose in Action

An agreement to assign part of an interest in a royalty agreement is an agreement to assign part of a chose in action; Shepherd v Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 385.

A legal assignment of part of a royalty agreement is permissible in Western Australia pursuant to section 20 of the Property Law Act.

Application of Law to Facts

Because Aus Co agreed to assign to Blue Co legal title to part of the income stream, and Blue Co paid cash consideration for that agreement, there was a valid equitable assignment of a legal chose in action (being a part of the income stream). Blue Co, being the equitable assignee, cannot sue for recovery at law without joining the assignor as a party to the suit.

The additional right that Blue Co will obtain upon perfecting the equitable assignment is that Blue Co will have pursuant to section 20 of the Property Law Act (WA) the right to sue Red Co for breach of the 2005 Agreement in Blue Co's own name.

Former subsection 160M(6) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, predecessor to section 104-35, applied where a person disposes of an asset that did not exist (either by itself or as part of another asset) before the disposal, but is created by the disposal; Replacement Explanatory Memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No.4) 1992. The signing of the proposed Deed would allow the parties to exercise and fulfill their rights and obligations that already existed under the 2007 Agreement. CGT event D1 would not happen because there is no creation of a new asset that did not exist (either by itself or as part of another asset).


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).