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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1051214590238

Date of advice: 13 April 2017

Ruling

Subject: Commissioner's Discretion for 2 year main residence exemption

Question

Will the Commissioner exercise his discretion under subsection 118-195(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA1997) in relation to the property?

Answer

Yes.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

Year ended 30 June 2016

The scheme commences on:

1 July 2015

Relevant facts and circumstances

The deceased acquired the property in 19AA.

From the time that he/she acquired the property until his/her death it was his/her main residence.

The deceased passed away in 20BB.

Between the time that the deceased passed and the property was sold, the property remained vacant.

The deceased had made a Will dated 20CC (the 20CC Will).

It named Child A as sole executor.

Child A assisted the deceased with his/her personal and financial affairs prior to his/her death and held the original copy of the 20CC Will.

The deceased had made another Will previously, on 20DD (the 20DD Will).

The 20DD Will the deceased's Child B was the sole executor and a beneficiary.

Neither Child A nor Child B held an original copy of the 20DD Will.

In 20EE Child C engaged lawyers and wrote to Child A to challenge the validity of the 20CC Will on the grounds that the deceased lacked the testamentary capacity to make that Will.

In 20EE Child A responded that she/he had become aware that the deceased made the 20DD Will and proposed that the parties meet with a view to resolving the matter.

Child A located a copy of the 20DD will and presented it to Child C's lawyers in 20EE.

There were protracted negotiations between Child A and Child C's Lawyers relating to the deceased's estate, including:

The negotiations between Child A and Child C's lawyers at 20FF when Child A ceased handling the negotiations, Lawyer A was appointed lawyer for Child B to pursue negotiations on his/her behalf.

Child A reasons for ceasing to handle the negotiations and act as executor were due to a cognitive impairment.

Negotiations continued between Lawyer A and Child C's lawyers about numerous matters in dispute until 20FF when a Deed of Settlement was entered into between the deceased's four children.

The Deed of Settlement evidenced the resolution of most of the disputed matters and included the term Child B would take necessary steps to apply for Probate of the 20DD Will.

After the Deed of Settlement was entered into, it was realised that the original copy of the 20DD Will could not be located.

After searches for the original copy of the 20DD Will were unsuccessful in 20FF an application was made to the register of Probate that Probate be granted on the copy of the 20DD Will.

Initially Probate was not granted on the 20DD Will and resulted in complex requisitions made by the Probate Registrar.

Child B subsequently appointed, in 20GG, Lawyer B that specialises in these issues to attend to responding to the complex requisitions.

Lawyer B lodged further documents in 20GG to address the Probate Registrar's requisitions, but this resulted in further complex requisitions from the Registrar.

As a result a Probate specialist counsel was engaged to respond further and their responses finally resulted in Probate on the copy of the 20DD Will being granted in 20HH.

After Probate was granted Child B, who lives interstate, became aware that the carport to the deceased's property had been substantially damaged due to a storm.

It had been indicated that the manager of the Body Corporate had been notified of this, but upon contacting the manager they had denied receiving the report.

Further discussion between Child B and the Body Corporate manager ensued to have the damage repaired, which was finally carried out in 20JJ.

The deceased's property was then put on the market.

A contract of sale was entered into in 20JJ and settlement occurred in 20LL.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 118-195(1)

Reasons for decision

Subsection 118-195(1) of the ITAA 1997 allows a trustee of a deceased estate to disregard a capital gain or loss from a dwelling if:

The following is a non-exhaustive list of situations in which the Commissioner would be expected to exercise the discretion:

In your case, the delay in disposal was caused by the challenging of the will, the original executor's illness and the complex nature of the estate which also delayed the granting of Probate.

Having considered the particular circumstances of this case, the Commissioner will apply his discretion under subsection 118-195(1) of the ITAA 1997 and allow an extension to the two year time limit to 20LL.

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).