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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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

Authorisation Number: 1012632488003

Ruling

Subject: Compensation settlement

Question 1

Whether any part of the amount of paid to the trust during the year pursuant to the Deed of Settlement represents:

Answer

No part of the amount is ordinary income pursuant to section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997 or an assessable recoupment pursuant to Subdivision 20-A of the ITAA 1997. However, it is capital proceeds for an assessable capital gain.

Question 2

Whether a CGT event resulting in a capital gain occurs for the trust during the year ended 30 June 2013 as a result of the settlement implemented pursuant to the terms of the deed?

Answer

CGT event C2 happened as a result of entering into the Deed of Settlement pursuant to section 104-25 of the ITAA 1997.

Question 3

If an amount is assessable to the trust as ordinary or statutory income and a CGT event occurs as a result of the terms of the Deed of Settlement, the extent to which section 118-20 of the ITAA 1997 will operate to ensure that the same amount is not taxed twice?

Answer

Question is not applicable.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

2013 income year

The scheme commenced:

During the 2012 income year.

Relevant facts and circumstances

A testamentary trust was created under the will of a deceased person.

A trustee has been appointed to administer this trust. The trustee charges fees for services rendered in that capacity.

The trust derives income from passive investments and does not carry on business activity.

The trust has claimed deductions under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for the fees that were charged on revenue account, as management fees.

An income beneficiary under the will initiated legal action against the trustee, alleging various breaches of its duty.

The trustee strongly denied these allegations.

The parties were able to settle their dispute and the legal action was discontinued. The terms of settlement were contained in a Deed of Settlement.

Pursuant to deed, the trustee agreed to:

The trust has accounted for this amount on the basis that a proportion is charged to trust capital and the remainder is on revenue account in accordance with the Deed of Settlement.

The receipt of the amount did not result in the reduction of the cost base of any CGT asset held by the trust.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 6-5

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subdivision 20-A

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 20-20

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 20-30

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 104-25

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 108-5(1)

Reasons for decision

Question 1

For an amount to be regarded as an assessable recoupment under section 20-20 of the ITAA 1997 it must be:

It is considered that the conditions for paragraph (a) are not present in relation to the ex gratia payment because it was not received by way of insurance or indemnity. The conditions for paragraph (b) are not present because the losses or outgoings for management fees were deducted under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, which is not listed in the table to section 20-30 of the ITAA 1997.

Therefore, no part of the ex gratia payment is regarded to be an assessable recoupment pursuant to Subdivision 20-A of the ITAA 1997.

As to whether any part of the ex gratia payment could be regarded to be ordinary income for the purposes of section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997, the High Court has held in FCT v Rowe (1997) 35 ATR 432 that there is no general principle of Australian tax law to the effect that amounts received by way of reimbursement or compensation for deductible expenses are assessable. A receipt must be income according to ordinary concepts to be assessable (or specifically made assessable by legislation) and an amount is not income simply because it is a recoupment of a deductible expense.

A receipt must take on the characteristics of income in the recipient's hands.

Some of the factors that have evolved from case law that may indicate whether an item has the characteristics of ordinary income include (with comment on the characteristics of the ex gratia payment):

It is concluded that no part of the ex gratia payment is income under ordinary concepts for the purposes of section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997.

Question 2

To consider whether an amount received by way of compensation is subject to the capital gains provisions of the tax law regard must be had to the Commissioner's Taxation Ruling TR 95/35 Income tax: capital gains: treatment of compensation receipts (TR 95/35). While this ruling refers to the capital gains provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) the principles of that ruling are still applicable to the CGT provisions of the ITAA 1997.

Relevantly under this ruling, the Commissioner considers that when examining a compensation receipt to see if the capital gains provisions are applicable we are to consider whether the receipt was made in respect of permanent damage to or permanent reduction in value of an underlying asset. If there is no such underlying asset then the receipt must be for the disposal of the right to seek compensation, - refer to paragraph 11 of TR 95/35.

It is considered that in the present case there was no damage to an underlying asset that can be identified and that the relevant asset is the right to seek compensation. Such a right is defined in paragraph 3 of TR 95/35 to be:

Right to seek compensation

It follows that such a right is a CGT asset under subsection 108-5(1) of the ITAA 1997 because legal or equitable rights that are not property are CGT assets under paragraph 108-5(1)(b) of the ITAA 1997.

As the right to seek compensation is an intangible CGT asset receipt of an amount of money to cease pursuing that right would represent the end of the ownership of that asset. In terms of the ITAA 1997 the consequences of the ending of that ownership constitutes a CGT event C2 under section 104-25 of the ITAA 1997.

Subsection 104-25(1) of the ITAA 1997 provides:

104-25(1) CGT event C2 happens if your ownership of an intangible CGT asset ends by the asset:

The timing of the CGT event would be when the parties entered into the settlement agreement per subsection 104-25(2) of the ITAA 1997.

The amount of the ex gratia payment would be the capital proceeds for the purposes of section 116-20 of the ITAA 1997.

The cost base of the right to seek compensation is limited to any outlays the trust may have incurred in acquiring the right to seek compensation. However this would not include any expenses incurred by the trustee in defending the legal action.

The capital gain may also qualify for the general CGT discount of 50% under section 115-100 of the ITAA 1997. The conditions for such a discount to apply seem to be present:


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).