Edited version of private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1011782480701

This edited version of your ruling will be published in the public Register of private binding rulings after 28 days from the issue date of the ruling. The attached private rulings fact sheet has more information.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.

Ruling

Subject: non commercial losses - Commissioner's discretion

Question

Will the Commissioner exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) to allow you to include any losses from your grape growing activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2010-11 to 2013-14 income year?

Answer:

No.

This ruling applies for the following period

Year ending 30 June 2011

Year ending 30 June 2012

Year ending 30 June 2013

Year ending 30 June 2014

The scheme commenced on

1 July 2007

Relevant facts and circumstances

Your income for non-commercial loss purposes for the 2010-11 financial year onwards will exceed $250,000.

In the 20XX-XX financial year you purchased a vineyard.

The vineyard consists of various grape wine varieties.

You replanted a portion of the vines. These new vines will not mature for X years.

The original vines planted were at varying, different ages.

You have made a loss in the last X years since purchase.

Since the acquisition of the property there has been renovation and redevelopment activity:

A significant amount of the work carried out was done to improve the consistency and quality of the current vineyards. You believed the state of the vineyard and property at the time of purchase was not conducive to a commercially profitable operation.

All the wine grapes produced from the 2009-10 financial year and onwards are contracted to a major winery with the pricing of those grapes based on regional averages subject to conditions specified in the contracts.

You anticipate the vineyard will produce a taxable profit within a X year period taking into consideration new plantings, the time lag of fruit production and grape price maturity.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 35-55(1)(c)

Reasons for decision

For the 2009-10 and following income years there have been changes to the non-commercial losses legislation to limit the circumstances where business losses can be offset against other income.

The introduction of the income requirement test means that individuals with an adjusted taxable income for non-commercial loss purposes in excess of $250,000 for that year will not get access to the four tests. To be able to claim your losses in that year you have to be granted the Commissioner's discretion under section 35-55 of the ITAA 1997 or meet one of the exclusions.

Paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 states the Commissioner may decide that the loss deferral rule in subsection 35-10(2) does not apply to a business activity for one or more income years (the excluded years) if the Commissioner is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to apply that rule because the business activity has started to be carried on and, for the excluded years:

(a) because of its nature, it has not produced, or will not produce, assessable income greater than the deductions attributable to it; and

(b) there is an objective expectation, based on evidence from independent sources (where available) that, within a period that is commercially viable for the industry concerned, the activity will produce assessable income for an income year greater than the deductions attributable to it for that year (apart from the operation of subsections 35-10(2) and (2C)).

The phrase 'objective expectation' was discussed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal case of Scott v. Commissioner of Taxation [2006] AATA 542; VS2005/31-33, where it was said:

…in determining a commercially viable period, the test is primarily an objective one based on independent sources. According to the Commissioner, this approach was taken by the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Eskandari (2004) 134 FCR 569 where Stone J said, at 581-582:

In some cases it may be a straight forward exercise to identify the industry in which the business activity takes place. Some industries are well-established and the basis for an ''objective expectation'' can readily be based on a comparison between the tax payer's business and other businesses within that industry, particularly where businesses or business associations within the industry produce material such as annual reports or industry papers ...

Despite what Stone J said, Mr Scott contended that there were other circumstances which had to be taken into account when determining the commercially viable period expressed in the Olives Australia document. However, according to the Commissioner, this is impermissible because, as the Federal Court held in Eskandari, in most cases only objective material will be considered. It is only where, because of the nature of the industry, there is very little or no objective evidence that recourse may be had to the circumstances of the tax payer. That is not the case in the olive industry, which has been established for centuries. I agree with that submission. It seems to me that if it were permissible to take into account subjective considerations of each individual grower, there might be an almost infinitely variable period which could be described as the commercially viable period.

Further, in the case of Scott, additional plantings made at a later time were not permitted to be included in the commercially viable period, as follows:

The fact that a grower elects not to plant sufficient trees at the outset to ensure the business is commercially viable is a decision for that individual grower. Such a grower could not expect the Commissioner to exercise his discretion under s 35-55 in his or her favour because, to do so, would effectively render nugatory the rule dealing with losses from non-commercial business activities.

The sole reliance on objective evidence and the impermissibility of subjective considerations was further emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2009 as follows:

2.30 The taxpayer is required to establish objectively that the business is commercial in nature and will become profitable in a commercially viable timeframe. Objective evidence from independent sources can include evidence from an individual or organisation experienced in the relevant industry, such as industry or regulatory bodies, tertiary institutions, industry specialists, professional associations, government agencies or other independent entities with a similar successful business activity. Evidence from independent sources can also include evidence from business advisers (such as business plans), financiers and banks.

2.34 For taxpayers that do not meet the income requirement, the Commissioner may exercise a discretion after an application by a taxpayer, where the Commissioner is satisfied that - based on evidence from independent sources - the business will produce assessable income greater than available deductions, in a timeframe that is considered commercially viable for the industry concerned.

2.35 The discretion is not intended to be available in cases where the failure to make a profit is for reasons other than the nature of the business, such as, a consequence of starting out small and needing to build up a client base, or business choices made by an individual that are not consistent with the ordinary or accepted practice in the industry concerned - such as the hours of operation, location, climate or soil conditions, or the level of debt funding.

You have not provided any information regarding what is the commercially viable period for grapes. However, it can be assumed that as the oldest vines on your property date back to over X years of age it follows that the commercially viable period has expired for the purpose of this private ruling. Also, following the decision in the case of Scott, your uprooting of grape vines and replanting of new vines does not fall for consideration because you purchased a pre-existing orchard with a commercial number of vines.

As for the condition of the property and the quality of the grapes which you believe to be not commercially profitable, these are subjective and impermissible considerations, as affirmed in the cases of Eskandari and Stone. The previous condition of the property cannot be used as determinative factors in this private ruling.

To conclude, your purchase of the farm in the 20XX-XX financial year, the replanting of a portion of the acreage and the significant works carried out does not alter the requirement that a commercially viable period from planting to maturity must be used for the purpose of the Commissioner's discretion. It follows the Commissioner cannot exercise his discretion in your case because the objective commercially viable period has expired. Your inability to make a tax profit is not because of the nature of the business but because of the significant renovations being carried out to the property.