Edited version of private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1011870934874

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

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 farming activities in the calculation of your taxable income for the 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 years of income?

Answer: No

This ruling applies for the following period

Year ended 30 June 2010

Year ended 30 June 2011

Year ending 30 June 2012

Year ending 30 June 2013

Year ending 30 June 2014

Year ending 30 June 2015

The scheme commenced on

1 July 2007

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.

You operate an agricultural business You purchased the property on which your business operates in the 2007-08 financial year and planted crops immediately after purchase. Livestock have agisted on the property since purchase.

Assessable income has been produced from the first year of ownership.

You submit that the property was in a poor condition when you purchased it and have made improvements to the property.

You submit that it has not been possible to pay off capital and make property improvements at the same time. It is anticipated that the capital debt should be paid off, pasture established and stocked by the 2014-15 financial year.

You expect to make a tax profit in the 2014-15 financial year

Your income for non commercial loss purposes is in excess of $250,000.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 - Section 35-1.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 - Subsection 35-10(2E).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 - Subsection 35-55(1)

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

Reasons for decision

For the 2009-10 and later financial years, Division 35 of the ITAA 1997 will apply to defer a non-commercial loss from a business activity unless:

· you meet the income requirement and you pass one of the four tests

· the exceptions apply

· the Commissioner exercises his discretion.

In your situation, you do not satisfy the income requirement (that is, your taxable income, reportable fringe benefits and reportable superannuation contributions but excluding your business losses, exceeds $250,000) and do not come under any of the exceptions. Your business losses are therefore subject to the deferral rule unless the Commissioner exercises his discretion.

The relevant discretion may be exercised for the income year in question where:

· it is in the nature of your business activity that there will be a period before a tax profit can be produced

· there is an objective expectation your business activity will produce a tax profit within the commercially viable period for your industry.

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.

In order to exercise the discretion, the Commissioner must be satisfied there is an objective expectation, based on evidence from independent sources, that your business activity will produce assessable income greater than the deductions attributable to it for that year, within a commercially viable period (paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997).

In your case, you commenced your farming activities in 2007-08 financial year. You submit that you expect your activities will produce income greater than the expenses attributed to it in 2015-16 financial year or eight years after your activities commenced.

This is due to several factors, including the condition of the property when it was purchased. You submit that the property was virtually derelict at the time of purchase with severe infestation, pasture degradation and other significant problems.

The poor condition of the property when purchased is a subjective and impermissible consideration, as affirmed in the cases of Eskandari and Stone and cannot be used as determinative factor in this private ruling.

The reason your business activities are producing a loss is not due to the inherent nature of the business activity but is due to your specific circumstances. These include the condition of the property when it was purchased, the limited output of your business activities as a result of the property's condition and costs of financing.

Therefore, the Commissioner will not exercise the discretion available in accordance with subsection 35-55(1) and paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 for the 2009-10 to 2014-15 financial years.