Edited version of your private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1012378210070

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. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.

Ruling

Subject: Legal expenses

Question

Are you entitled to a deduction for legal expenses?

Answer

Yes

Relevant facts

You let a portion of your primary production property to a tenant for the purposes of producing their assessable income.

They injured themselves on your property.

You incurred legal expenses.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1

Reasons for decision

Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 allows a deduction for all losses or outgoings to the extent to which they are incurred in gaining or producing assessable income except where the outgoings are of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt income.

Generally, legal expenses have been held to be deductible if the expenses have arisen as a consequence of the taxpayer's income earning activities provided that the legal expenses are not of a capital, private or domestic nature ( Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 48 CLR 113; 2 ATD 169 ( Herald & Weekly Times ), Putnin v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 27 FCR 508; 91 ATC 4097; (1991) 21 ATR 1245 ( Putnin's Case ) and Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Snowden & Willson Pty Ltd (1958) 99 CLR 431; 11 ATD 463; (1958) 7 AITR 308 ( Snowden's Case )).

The principles established in Herald & Weekly Times are not confined to recurring or common expenses ( Putnin's Case and Snowden's Case ).

Legal expenses can be characterised as an outgoing on revenue account or an outgoing of a capital nature depending on the cause or purpose for which the legal expenses were incurred ( Hallstroms Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1946) 72 CLR 634; (1946) 3 AITR 436; 8 ATD 190).

The principles espoused in Herald & Weekly Times were applied in Case C12 (1952) 3 TBRD 100 ( Case C12 ). That case dealt with the trustees of a deceased estate, who let a city property to a number of tenants. A tenant's injured employee claimed damages against the trustees in respect of injuries she sustained on the rental premises. The Board, in allowing the trustees a deduction for the amount that they paid to settle the claim, stated that:

   [the trustees] became liable... because they had let rooms to tenants...It was in the capacity of landlord that the outgoing was incurred...the expense incurred resulted from a risk which, to a landlord, is ever present...the expense claimed as a deduction was one which arose out of the letting of the building to tenants for the purpose of producing assessable income, and that it can properly be regarded as having been incurred 'in the course of' gaining or producing that assessable income...I cannot see that the outgoing produced "an enduring benefit" of any sort. I can see no justification ...for capitalising the expense. It seems to me to be one which should properly be set against revenue account.

In your case the expenses arose out of the letting of the property area to a tenant for the purposes of producing assessable income. There is a clear connection between their legal expenses and their income earned from the letting of the portion of property such that the expenses are incidental and relevant to the generation of their assessable rental income. There was no enduring benefit produced by the expenditure and therefore it is appropriate to treat the expense as being on revenue account.

Therefore, the taxpayer you are entitled to a deduction under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for legal expenses that they have incurred in defending the damages claim.