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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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

Authorisation number: 1012838565530

Ruling

Subject: Deductibility of fees paid to terminate a franchise agreement

Question 1

Are payments made by the Trustee for Company A for the termination of franchises allowable as deductions in the year of payment under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?

Answer

No.

Question 2

If the answer to Question 1 is no, are the payments deductible over 5 years under section 40-880 or section 25-110 of the ITAA 1997?

Answer

Yes.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

1 July 20XX to 30 June 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.

The Company A Group Limited is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The Company A Group indirectly owns 100% of the Company A Unit Trust (Company A) and the Company A Franchising Unit Trust (Franchising). These entities, along with others, are collectively referred to as the Company A Group.

The Company A Group is Australia's largest and leading specialist retailer of widgets. The Company A Group's trading division includes a number of corporate and commercial stores owned by Company A, and a number of franchised stores.

For convenience, a reference in this ruling to Company A is a reference to the Trustee for the Company A Unit Trust, and a reference to Franchising is a reference to the Trustee for Franchising.

The System Licence Agreement

Company A developed a 'System' representing a combination of the intellectual property assets it owned and had developed to facilitate the carrying on of its retail business. Company A licensed the System to Franchising by executing the System Licence Agreement (SLA) in exchange for a nominal annual fee. In turn, Franchising may franchise the System to third parties from time to time. Although the fee paid by Franchising to Company A under the SLA is nominal, 100% of the franchising income flows to Company A as owner of all the units in Franchising.

Franchises

A typical franchise agreement between Franchising and a franchisee (Franchise Agreement) has the following features:

Obtaining a franchise provides access to system and support services as detailed in the Franchise Agreement and an operations manual, as well as access to intellectual property such as Company A logos and other trademarks. Support services are provided through the state sales managers.

A franchised store operates in a similar way to Company A owned stores. Typically, Company A leases the store, with the franchisee occupying the store as an operator under an Occupancy Agreement. Under the Franchise Agreement, each franchisee is granted a franchise (being a non-exclusive licence to establish and operate one Company A business in a designated territory).

The franchisees have a trading terms agreement with Company A, and the franchisees pay a royalty and a marketing fee to Franchising based on a percentage of gross sales on a monthly basis.

Under a Franchise Agreement, the franchisee agrees that any goodwill and any other rights or interests arising in connection with the System, (including the franchisee's use of the System), belong to the Company A Group. Further, the franchisee agrees that at the end of the Franchise Agreement, the franchisee is not entitled to any payment from the Company A Group for goodwill which may exist in relation to the System.

For example, a clause of the sample Franchise Agreement states that:

Termination of franchises

In certain circumstances, Company A or the franchisee may initiate negotiations to terminate the Franchise Agreement before the term expires. This may occur where a franchisee no longer wants to continue in that role or where the Company A Group believe they could operate that store more effectively. This may occur where a franchisee is not operating a successful store and the Company A Group believes that the brand could be negatively impacted if that particular franchisee continued in that role.

The termination of a franchise is effected by all parties entering into a Termination Agreement.

Under a typical Termination Agreement;

Under both termination scenarios contemplated above, the franchisee and Company A negotiate the Purchase Price and how it is to be allocated between the assets and goodwill.

Relevant legislative provisions

The relevant provisions dealt with in this Ruling are:

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 8-1

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 25-110

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 40-880

Reasons for decision

Summary

Payments made by Company A to a franchisee to terminate a Franchise Agreement are not deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997.

Detailed reasoning

All legislative references in this Ruling are to the ITAA 1997 unless otherwise stated.

Section 8-1 allows for an immediate deduction for expenses incurred in the carrying on of a business provided that the expenses are not capital in nature.

Judicial precedent for distinguishing between capital and revenue was established by the High Court in Sun Newspapers Ltd and Associated Newspapers Ltd v. FC of T (1938) 61 CLR 337; (1938) 45 ALR 10; (1938) 1 AITR 403; 5 ATD 97 (Sun Newspapers). At 359, Dixon J stated:

Justice Dixon stated that assessing the character of the expenditure was another relevant consideration (at 363):

In these reasons for decision we will first consider what constitutes Company A's business and its profit yielding structure. We will then consider the character of the expenditure in terms of the above factors.

What is Company A's business?

A franchise is an arrangement which allows the franchisee to use the intellectual property, goodwill and business system that is owned by the franchisor. The term 'franchising' covers various forms of co-operation between different entities.

Company A utilises the System it has developed in two ways. Firstly it uses the System to help operate the corporate stores whereby it sells products and services to customers, earning 100% of the gross revenue and incurring all expenditure in relation to these sales.

Secondly, Company A generates income from licensing the System to Franchising, which in turn licences the System to franchisees. Its revenue from this part of the business is mainly derived by receiving ongoing royalty payments paid by each franchisee to Franchising, which are then on paid to Company A, as holder of 100% of the units in Franchising.

What is Company A's profit yielding structure?

In identifying the structure established by Company A for the earning of profit, assistance may be garnered from the statements of Dixon J in Sun Newspapers (at 359):

The Commissioner considers that franchising is an enterprise that is within the scope of the above statement of Dixon J, in that it comprises a low proportion of physical assets and a high proportion of intangible assets, including goodwill.

Goodwill

In FC of T v. Murry (1998) HCA 42; 98 ATC 4585; (1998) 39 ATR 129, the majority of the High Court (at paragraph 20) stated that the attraction of custom still remains central to the legal concept of goodwill, and further that:

The Commissioner considers that Company A's business structure relies on the intellectual property it has developed, and that this intellectual property is the main component that makes up the goodwill of the business.

You state in your contentions that despite accounting for a portion of the termination payment as goodwill:

You further state that:

The Commissioner acknowledges that the Franchise Agreements result in the franchisee not owning the goodwill of the business, however what the franchisee does acquire is a non-exclusive licence to operate a certain store and utilise goodwill developed by the Company A Group, provided the franchisee complies with the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement.

Therefore whilst the Commissioner agrees that no goodwill belongs to the franchisee, Company A effectively gives up its right to operate a store in the area using the franchise system that it has developed when it grants a franchise. When Company A makes a payment to terminate a franchise, it is effectively cancelling the licence so that the full use of the goodwill as it relates to the particular store reverts back to the Company A Group.

Operation of Corporate Stores

The Commissioner considers that the corporate stores from which Company A operates itself, form part of Company A's profit yielding structure.

Granting and termination of a franchise

The granting of a non-exclusive licence to the franchisee allows the franchisee to operate its own business subject to the terms and conditions in the Franchise Agreement for the franchise term. The relevant clauses which support that the franchisee operates its own business (in the sample Franchise Agreement) include:

From the above terms and conditions it is evident that the granting of the franchise results in Company A disposing of part of its profit yielding structure by issuing the non-exclusive licence to operate its business in a certain location.

The Commissioner considers that by terminating a franchise Company A is agreeing to accept the surrender of the franchise (a non-exclusive licence) such that it will be able to operate the particular store itself.

You support your contention that by terminating the franchise, Company A is not making any fundamental change to the structure of its business but is reorganising its management of a particular store, on the basis of the decision in Anglo Persian Oil Co v. Dale [1932] 1 KB 124, [1931] All ER 725, (1931) 47 TLR 487, (Anglo Persian).

In the Anglo Persian case, the company had contracts with agents for the conduct of its business in remote parts of the world. The agents were renumerated by commission at specified rates. As the business developed, the company from time to time dispensed with the services of such agents, finding itself able to carry on the business more economically directly by its own servants.

In concluding that the payments made to dispense with the agents' services were revenue in nature, Lawrence J stated that (at 141):

The Commissioner considers that the Anglo Persian case should be distinguished from the Company A Group's circumstances on the basis that the contractual relationship between Anglo Persian and its agents was one of agency, with Anglo Persian contracting its agents to represent it in its dealings with its customers in remote areas. In doing so, Anglo Persian retained its relationship as the principal in dealings with its customers.

In the circumstances of the Company A Group, Company A granted a non-exclusive right to enable a franchise to operate using the System, so it could service its own customers. Whilst the franchisee was required to operate its franchise under strict terms and conditions as outlined in the Franchise Agreement, this does not change the fact that the right provided by Company A requires the franchisee to operate the business as their own and on the basis that they earn all profits and bear all of the risks which are normally associated with running a business.

The termination of the licence will result in the profit yielding structure of Company A's business expanding, as it will now be able to operate the business in the franchise area that is being surrendered.

Prior to termination of the franchise, the franchisee was able to use Company A's System to service its own customers. Company A's role was to maintain and develop that System to assist the franchisee increase sales and profitability. In return for this, Company A was entitled to receive royalty payments from the franchisee through Franchising. The customers of the franchise were those of the franchisee and not Company A. Company A's contractual obligations were with the franchisee and not with the customers who purchased goods and services from the franchised store.

The Commissioner considers that granting of a franchise would result in Company A reducing its profit yielding structure and the subsequent termination would result in the expansion of its profit yielding structure.

Character of the expenditure

As mentioned previously, in Sun Newspapers Dixon J stated that when distinguishing between capital and revenue, assessing the character of the expenditure was also a relevant consideration, and articulated three matters to be considered being the character of the advantage sought by the expenditure, the manner in which the expenditure is to be used, relied upon or enjoyed and the means adopted to obtain the benefit.

Character of the advantage sought

In relation to the first matter, the character of the advantage sought by the expenditure, it is necessary to examine whether the expenditure secures an enduring benefit for the business. This test was outlined by Viscount Cave in British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd v Atherton [1962] AC 205 at 213 - 214:

The character of the advantage sought by the making of the expenditure is the chief, if not the critical, factor in determining the character of what is paid. The nature or character of the expenditure will therefore follow the advantage that is sought to be gained by incurring the expenditure. If the advantage to be gained is of a capital nature, then the expenditure incurred in gaining the advantage will also be of a capital nature.

The Commissioner has considered the commercial reality of the transactions against the requirements of the contractual terms such that neither is the sole deciding factor, but a factor to be considered. As such, the Commissioner has focussed on what Company A got in return for the expenditure, in accordance with the comments of Windeyer J in BP Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1965] ALR 381 [8]:

In considering the nature of the advantage sought, you contend that:

From the above statement it is clear that the nature of the advantage sought is to terminate the Franchise Agreement so that Company A can operate a particular store in such a way as to maximise its profits. The following factors indicate that the termination of the franchise provides Company A with an enduring benefit:

1. the one-off termination payment allows Company A to operate the store as a corporate store for an indefinite period of time. Had Company A not paid the termination fee, the franchisee may have been granted a franchise renewal for a further 7 years;

2. in practice, following termination of a Franchise Agreement, Company A has taken over the leased premises and continued to run the stores with its own employees - the stores in question have not been re-franchised; and

3. clause 22.2 of the Termination Agreement states that the parties agree that the Deed provides for the supply of a going concern - that is, by terminating the franchise, Company A acquires a going concern and will operate it as one of its corporate stores.

The Commissioner is therefore of the view that Company A's main purpose for terminating the agreements with the franchised stores was so that it could maximise profits for an indefinite period of time and that it could do this by terminating the agreements with the franchised stores.

Manner in which the expenditure is to be used, relied upon or enjoyed

In relation to the second matter to be considered when assessing the character of the expenditure, the manner in which the expenditure is to be used, relied upon or enjoyed, regard must be had to the recurrent nature of the returns it produces.

From the above analysis it is evident that what Company A acquired upon terminating a Franchise Agreement, was a going concern by virtue of the fact that the franchisee no longer held the licence to operate the franchise and that now Company A could operate the store as its own corporate store.

By terminating the franchise Company A was successful in acquiring a business structure that would result in increased profits as compared with receiving its income by way of royalties.

Therefore it can be concluded that the manner in which the expenditure was to be used and relied upon or enjoyed was by effectively acquiring a going concern that would result in regular returns in the way of sale of goods and services from the running of the particular store.

Means adopted to obtain the benefit

The final matter to be considered when assessing the character of the expenditure, as described in Sun Newspapers by Dixon J, requires analysis of the means adopted to obtain the benefit and whether this payment related to the expansion of the profit yielding structure, or whether the outlay was more akin to an ordinary business expense that could be matched with regular returns.

You argue that the facts in National Australia Bank Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 37 ATR 378 (NAB) supports the contention that the termination payment is immediately deductible:

You also state in respect of the lump sum payment:

The Commissioner does not agree with your reasoning that the payment is part of Company A's ordinary business activities in organising its method of operating existing stores, for the reasons outlined in the profit yielding structure section above.

In Labrilda Pty Ltd v. DFC of T 96 ATC 4303, the taxpayer was a Mobil dealer, who bought the business of a petrol station and entered into several agreements with Mobil. These agreements allowed him to access a Mobil business package, comprising new and improved products, methods of marketing, merchandising and promotion and a new and improved means of customer service (collectively called the 'Team Pak Programme'). In consideration, the taxpayer paid Mobil an upfront accreditation fee.

Justices Spender and Ryan concluded that the taxpayer's expenses in relation to the accreditation fee were capital in nature and not deductible as outgoings incurred in the carrying on of the business. They ruled that the expense was more concerned with establishing the profit-yielding structure of the taxpayer's business.

The Commissioner considers that the payment of a lump sum clearly relates to the termination of the Franchise Agreement, which enables Company A to expand its profit yielding structure to an area where it does not have the right to operate a store. Furthermore, whilst not determinative, the fact that the payment is made as a lump sum indicates that the payment was made as a 'once and for all' payment, more akin to a capital purpose.

Conclusion

From analysing the above factors, the Commissioner considers that the payment to terminate a franchise is not deductible under section 8-1 on the basis that the character of the expenditure is capital in nature.

Question 2

If not, are the payments deductible over 5 years under section 40-880 or section 25-110?

Summary

The termination payments made by Company A are deductible over a five year period under section 25-110, to the extent that each payment relates to the termination of a licence to use intellectual property and under section 40-880 to the extent that the payment does not relate to the termination of a licence to use intellectual property.

Detailed reasoning

Section 25-110

Subsection 25-110(1) provides for a five year write off for capital expenditure incurred to terminate a lease or licence (including an authority, permit or quota), which;

The deduction is subject to certain exceptions contained in subsections 25-110(3) to 25-110(6).

The payment of a termination fee incurred by the Company A secures the termination of a Franchise Agreement. The payment enables Company A to operate the franchise as one of its own corporate stores.

A Franchise Agreement entered into between Franchising and the franchisee confers contractual rights and obligations on both the franchisor and the franchisee. The nature of a franchise prescribes that a termination payment terminates the various rights and obligations that collectively constitute what the franchisee acquired under the franchise agreement; the right to use the intellectual property in operating the franchise during the term of the agreement, the contractual right to use the services of the franchisor for purposes of advertising and marketing of their products, and management assistance and training.

In short, a franchise may include but be wider than a licence, which would appear to be the case here. See Bob Jane T-Marts v. FC of T 99 ATC 4437 and the definition of 'franchise agreement' in Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Franchising) Regulation 2014, clause 4.

The words 'to terminate a lease or a licence' in subsection 25-110(1) entails a direct link between the incurrence of the expenditure and the termination of the lease or licence. In other words, expenditure which has been incurred for the purposes of causing or inducing the termination of the lease or licence and has the consequence of having done so, is deductible. However, a termination payment incurred by Company A terminates all of the rights and obligations under the Franchise Agreement. Accordingly, the termination payment is incurred to terminate not only the licence to use the intellectual property, but also the contractual obligations under the Franchise Agreement.

In these circumstances, it is reasonable for only that part of the payment that can be said to be paid 'to' terminate the licence to use the intellectual property and result in its termination to be eligible for deduction under section 25-110. Apportionment of the payment would therefore be required.

In making an apportionment of the payment, the method used must be reasonable and what is reasonable will often depend on the particular circumstances.

Based on the information supplied by you, the Commissioner considers that none of the exceptions contained in subsections 25-110(3) to 25-110(6) of the ITAA 1997 will apply in this case.

Section 40-880

Subject to the limitations and exceptions contained in subsections 40-880(3) to (9), subsection 40-880(2) provides that you can deduct, in equal proportions over a period of five income years starting in the year in which you incur it, capital expenditure you incur:

Paragraph 40-880(5)(b) provides that you cannot deduct anything under section 40-880 for an amount of expenditure you incur to the extent that you can deduct an amount for it under any other provision of this Act. Accordingly, any portion of the termination payment that is deductible under section 25-110 is not eligible for deduction under subsection 40-880(2). It is necessary to consider however, whether the balance of the termination payment ('the remaining portion of the payment') may be deductible under this section.

It is not in dispute that the remaining portion of the payment is capital expenditure, and that it was incurred in relation to Company A business (see question 1).

To the extent that a payment is business-related capital expenditure, any deduction available under subsection 40-880(2) is subject to the exceptions and limitations in subsections 40-880(3), 40-880(4), 40-880(5), 40-880(6), 40-880(7), 40-880(8) and 40-880(9). Of these, subsection 40-880(5) contains the only exception that may be relevant in Company A's circumstances. Paragraph 40-880(5)(d) provides:

The expression 'in relation to a lease or other legal or equitable right', or any part of the expression, is not defined in legislation. However, the Commissioner's view on its meaning is explored in TR 2011/6 Income tax:  business related capital expenditure - section 40-880 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 core issues, which states that it has limited practical application. Specifically, paragraph 47 provides that:

The Commissioner has established that a portion of the termination payment is indeed in relation to a lease or other legal or equitable right (a licence). That portion of the termination payment is deductible under section 25-110. As a consequence of the apportionment of the termination payment, the remaining portion of the payment will be that portion which is not in relation to a lease or other legal or equitable right. Accordingly, subsection 40-880(5)(d) will not apply to limit any deduction available to Company A under section 40-880, in relation to the remaining portion of the payment.

Conclusion

For the reasons provided above, the Commissioner accepts that the payments made by Company A to terminate Franchise Agreements are eligible for deduction under:


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).