Edited version of private advice

Authorisation Number: 1052019402696

Date of advice: 16 August 2022

Ruling

Subject: Commissioner's discretion - franking deficit tax

Question

Will the Commissioner exercise discretion under subsection 205-70(6) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) to not apply the 30% offset reduction in the 2021 financial year?

Answer

No.

This private ruling applies for the following period:

30 June 20XX

The scheme commences on:

1 July 20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances

In July 20XX the company lodged a franking account return for the 20XX financial year. The company also made a payment to the Australian Taxation Office on XX July 20XX of $X.

The form and payment were not processed until X July 20XX. This delay had a flow on effect of not triggering pay as you go instalments (PAYGI) for the 20XX financial year which would have credited to the franking account.

The company paid a dividend of $X on 30 June 20XX.

A franking deficit of $X arose in the 20XX financial year.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 205-70(6)

Reasons for decision

Subsection 205-70(6) of the ITAA 1997 provides that the 30% offset reduction does not apply if the Commissioner exercises his discretion in the relevant year. The Commissioner will determine this in writing, after receiving an application by the entity. The 30% reduction will not be applied if the franking deficit occurred as a result of events that were outside of the control of the entity.

The Commissioner will generally consider a franking deficit to have arisen due to events outside the taxpayer's control if the events that gave rise to the deficit were not readily foreseeable and could not be influenced or controlled by the company.

For a circumstance to be outside of the taxpayers or their agents control or unanticipated, there must have been an event or circumstance which:

•                     was unforeseeable or unexpected

•                     operated alone or together with other circumstances (unusual or not)

•                     was beyond the control of the taxpayer or their agent, and

•                     could not have been avoided by compliance with accepted standards of business organisation and professional conduct.

Examples of circumstances outside of the control or unanticipated are:

1. A down turn in business that is linked to the reduced offset. There must be evidence of behaviour on the part of the taxpayer that there was an attempt at mitigation, but that the result was unavoidable.

2. Unusual events which interrupt the ordinary course of business such as:

•                     protracted audits undertaken by the Tax Office which may hinder the preparation, lodgement and payment of income tax

•                     international reviews or objections in relation to specific taxation issues which cause unexpected or unavoidable refunds resulting in large franking debits to the franking account

•                     situations resulting in unexpected or unavoidable refunds which trigger franking debits in the franking account

•                     substituted accounting periods which have the effect of shortening the income year and hence shortening the period within which sufficient franking credits can be generated

•                     liquidations, whether voluntary or not, which may shorten the income year and hence shorten the period within which sufficient franking credits can be generated, or

•                     take-overs or consolidation of entities that trigger the consolidation rules obliging the joining entity to determine and pay any outstanding franking deficit tax at the joining time.

3. Circumstances which give rise to special consideration.

The following examples do not meet the legislative requirements of unanticipated circumstances or circumstances beyond the entities control:

•                     improper tax planning

•                     bad management

•                     inadvertent errors, and

•                     expansion of business.

Application to your circumstances

In this case, the delayed processing of the franking account form for the year ending 30 June 20XX resulted in the company not automatically being entered into the PAYGI system for the 20XX financial year.

The delay in processing the form did not prevent the company from making payments by voluntarily entering the PAYGI system during the 20XX financial year. A franking deficit tax liability arose because the franking account was a deficit as at 30 June 20XX and the company chose to pay a dividend of $X on 30 June 20XX.

Improper tax planning does not meet the legislative requirements of unanticipated circumstances or circumstances beyond your control. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to exercise the discretion.

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).