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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1012524191842

Ruling

Subject: GST and out of court settlement

Questions

1. For the purposes of the goods and services tax (GST) has any supply occurred when you the defendant made the agreed payment to Company X (plaintiff) under the Deed of Settlement (Deed)?

2. If Company C is liable to pay GST, are they entitled to claim back the GST paid on the payment made to the plaintiff under the Deed?

3. If an apportionment of the payment is required between you and Company C, how should this apportionment be done

Advice

1. Yes, the plaintiff has made a supply under subparagraph 9-10 2)(g) of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act) to you the defendant when you made the agreed payment to the plaintiff under the Deed.

2. Under section 11-20 of the GST Act you are entitled to an input tax credit for any creditable acquisitions that you make. As stated in question 1, the plaintiff has made the supply to the defendant under the Deed. Accordingly, Company C has not made any acquisitions from the plaintiff under the Deed.

3. As stated in question 1 the plaintiff has made the supply to the defendant under the Deed. Accordingly, no apportionment of the payment is required between you and Company C since it was the defendant that made the payment to the plaintiff under the Deed.

Relevant facts

You were an employee of Company X for several years. You resigned from your work and started your own business through a company, Company C.

Company C is registered for GST and you are the director of Company C. You personally are not registered for GST.

Company X is registered for GST. Company X commenced proceedings in the District Court for breach of restraint of trade (the Proceedings) to stop Company C from trading.

A court order was made by the judge in the District Court. You are referred as the 'defendant' and Company X is referred as the 'plaintiff' in the Court Order.

The Court Order states the following:

You, Company C and Company X agreed to settle the whole of the disputes including the Proceedings by entering a Deed of Settlement (Deed). You are referred as the 'defendant' and Company X is referred as the 'plaintiff' in the Deed of Settlement.

The terms of settlement are as follows:

Relevant legislative provisions

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 subsection 7-1(1)

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

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 subparagraph 9-10(2)(g)

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 9-20

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 11-20

Reasons for decisions

Question 1

Summary

The plaintiff has made a supply under subparagraph 9-10(2)(g) of GST Act to the defendant when the defendant made the agreed payment to the plaintiff under the Deed.

Detailed reasoning

The GST consequences of a court order or out-of-court settlement will depend on whether the payment made under an order or settlement constitutes consideration for a supply and, if so, whether the supply is in nature of a taxable supply.

Goods and Services Tax Ruling GSTR 2001/4 sets out the Commissioner's view on the GST consequences resulting from court orders and out-of-court settlements. It analyses, amongst other things, the concept of supply and the nexus that must exist between a payment and a supply in order to establish the relationship of a supply for consideration.

According to paragraph 21 of GSTR 2001/4 three fundamental criteria must be met for there to be a supply for consideration and these three criteria are:

Essentially, a supply is something which passes from one entity to another. The supply may be one of particular goods, services or something else.

The term supply under subsection 9-10(1) of the GST Act includes any form of supply whatsoever. GSTR 2001/4 explains that supplies related to out-of-court settlements fall within one of three categories which are:

An earlier supply is a supply that occurred before the dispute arose, and which is the subject of the dispute.

A current supply is one that may be created by the terms of the court order or out-of-court settlement. Paragraphs 48 and 49 of GSTR 2001/4 discuss current supplies. They state:

A discontinuance supply may be characterised as:

Paragraphs 50 to 55 and 109 of GSTR 2001/4 discuss discontinuance supplies. They state:

Subparagraph 9-10(2)(g) of the GST Act defines 'supply' to include an entry into an obligation:

We will now consider whether a supply has occurred under the Deed based on the information received.

Has a supply occurred under the Deed?

Under clause 1 of the Deed the defendant had to pay an agreed amount to the plaintiff as an out-of-court settlement and Clause 3 in the Deed provides that at the time of payment the parties in the Deed would sign all necessary documents and take all steps required to effect the setting aside of the Order referred to in clause 2 of the Deed and effect the discontinuance of the Proceeding.

Pursuant to clause 2 of the Deed, at the time of payment the parties to the Deed entered into an obligation to consent to an order that the Orders made in the District Court be set aside. In this instance we consider the Plaintiff has supplied an obligation releasing the defendant (who is also the defendant in the Orders) from the obligations set out in the Order made in the State District Court. The supply of this released obligation is a supply under subparagraph 9-10(2)(g) of the GST Act and is considered to be a current supply for GST purposes because it is a supply that was created by the terms of settlements set out in the Deed.

Further, under clause 5 in the Deed, the plaintiff released the defendant from the obligating terms set out under the heading 'Termination of Employment' in paragraph Y of the letter of offer of employment to the defendant dated XXX. We consider that under this clause the plaintiff has made a release of obligation (which is a supply under subparagraph 9-10(2)(g) of the GST Act) to the defendant since it is the defendant who had to comply to the terms under the letter of offer of employment and thereby released from this obligation under the Deed. The release of this obligation is a current supply because it is a supply that was created by the terms of the settlement set out in the Deed

To summarise, we consider the plaintiff has made the above supplies to the defendant under the Deed and the supplies were made for consideration since there is sufficient nexus between the plaintiff's supplies and the agreed payment.

Additional information

GST is payable taxable supplies. You make a taxable supply where you satisfy all the requirements of section 9-5 of the GST Act, which states:

You make a taxable supply if:

(*Denotes a term defined in section 195-1 of the GST Act)

Based on the information received, the supplies made by the plaintiff would satisfy all requirements in section 9-5 of the GST Act and therefore would be taxable supplies. GST would therefore be applicable to the supplies.

Question 2

Under section 11-20 of the GST Act you are entitled to an input tax credit for any creditable acquisitions that you make.

As stated in question 1, the plaintiff made the supplies to the defendant under the Deed. Company C has therefore not made any acquisitions from the plaintiff.

Question 3

As discussed in question 1, the plaintiff made the supplies the defendant under the Deed. Accordingly, no apportionment of the payment is required between the defendant and Company C since it was the defendant that made the payment to the plaintiff.


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).