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This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1051407490303

Date of advice: 27 July 2018

Ruling

Subject: GST free supply of car parts

Question

Is the supply of a utility canopy to you a GST free supply of a car part?

Answer

No. The utility canopy is not a GST free supply of a car part.

This ruling applies for the following period:

From 1 January 2018

The scheme commences on:

1 January 2018

Relevant facts and circumstances

Relevant legislative provisions

Subsection 38-P of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act)

Subsection 38-505(1) of the GST Act

Subsection 38-505(4) of the GST Act

Part 6 of Chapter 4 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004

Section 24 of the Veteran’s Entitlements Act 1986

Reasons for decision

Subdivision 38-P of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act) provides concessions to disabled veterans to purchase cars and car parts GST-free.

Subsection 38-505(1) of the GST Act states:

We accept that you meet the threshold eligibility tests to the extent that you meet subparagraphs 38-505 (1)(a), (b) and (c).

In addition as you are acquiring an item for the utility vehicle you purchased GST- free, the item can be GST-free if it is covered by subsection 38-505(4) which states:

The primary question is whether the utility canopy falls within the definition of car parts described in subsection 38-505(4).

‘Car parts’ is defined in the GST Act. The definition at section 195-1 says:

As the definition uses the word ‘includes’ it is defined inclusively which means it can be read in conjunction with the ordinary meaning of ‘car parts’.

The Macquarie Dictionary (5th ed 2012 online) defines 'part', relevantly for the present purposes, as:

Further interpretative assistance can also be found in the way judges have in the past considered the terms. The cases of closest relevance have been about determining if a thing is a ‘part’ or something lesser than a ‘part’ such as an ‘accessory’.

In National Panasonic (Australia) Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW), Re (1985) 7 ALD 647; 3 AAR 156, the issue under consideration was whether video cassettes formed ‘part’ of the player or were a something lesser. It held that a video cassette should be seen as a single total entity in itself and not as part of the entity of the video recorder. Importantly, it held a ‘part’ is something necessary to the completion of an article, a “constituent or component part” — it is something forming part of a whole, rather than something being constantly withdrawn or replaced.

It also held a video cassette can also not be regarded as an “accessory” for a video cassette recorder. The very word “accessory” carries a connotation of something that is “added or attached for convenience”. It does not fit well with a notion of indispensability (and a video cassette is effectively indispensable to use of a video cassette recorder), and virtually assumes that the article is optional.

The meaning of the word ‘part’ has also been extensively considered in American customs cases. Typical of the approach in these cases is the following extract from the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in United States v Willoughby Camera Stores Inc (1933) 21 CCPA 322, TD 46851 at 324, where it was stated, that: ‘It is a well-established rule that a “part” of an article is something necessary to the completion of that article. It is an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article …’

In considering this principle, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd (1971) 46 ALJR 32,

Gibbs J found:

As to ’accessories’ the learned judge said at 35:

ATO ID 2014/11’ Income Tax Research and Development: building expenditure’ quotes and restates the principles of these cases where it says:

The principles that we can take from these cases is that a part makes up a piece of the whole item, in this case a car. It must also be essential to the whole item. If we apply this to the definition of ‘car part’, where the definition says that they ‘include bodies for those cars’, it means those body pieces can only be ‘parts’ where they formed part of the original vehicle.

Where the item does not form part of the original vehicle, it is better considered to be of lesser importance and secondary to the original. Given that the utility canopy is not part of the original vehicle, and it is of secondary importance to the car, it is better described as an accessory.

As the utility canopy is not a car part, it is not GST free under section 38-505 of the GST Act.


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).