| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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 private ruling
Authorisation Number: 1012452034270
NOTICE
This private ruling was revised following issue. This edited version has therefore been replaced with the edited version of the private ruling with the authorisation number of 1051618045183.
Ruling
Subject: GST apportionment methodology
Questions and Answers
1. Is the methodology considered to be fair and reasonable for calculating extent of creditable purpose for acquisitions made by members of the Group for the purposes of Division 11 of the GST Act?
Yes, based on the facts as set out in this private ruling, the methodology is considered to be fair and reasonable for calculating extent of creditable purpose for acquisitions made by members of the Group that are not directly attributable to particular supplies for the purposes of Division 11 of the GST Act.
(All further legislative references are to GST Act unless stated otherwise)
(All further references to acquisitions made by you are to acquisitions made by members of the GST Group to which you act as Group representative)
2. In the event that availability of information or business reporting varies such that a particular data source is no longer available, will the methodology remain fair and reasonable if a reasonable alternative data source is substituted?
In the event that availability of information or business reporting varies such that a particular data source is no longer available and a reasonable alternative data source is substituted, the methodology will remain fair and reasonable if the methodology continues to satisfy the requirements set out at paragraph 73 of GSTR 2006/3.
3. Will the methodology remain fair and reasonable if it is applied for tax periods over a certain period in the past (the refund period)?
The methodology will remain fair and reasonable for all tax periods within the refund period if the circumstances for all tax periods within the refund period are materially identical to the circumstances set out in this private ruling.
4. If data in relation to underlying drivers, such as business reports, are (sic) not available for prior years, is it fair and reasonable to use available information for other years during the refund period to generate alternate drivers provided that there is no available evidence of substantial distortion in result occurring?
If data in relation to underlying drivers, such as business reports, is not available for prior years, and you use available information for other years during the refund period to generate alternate drivers, the methodology will remain fair and reasonable if:
· your circumstances for the prior years (in respect of which data in relation to underlying drivers is not available) are materially identical to the circumstances of the other years during the refund period (in respect of which information is available) which years are also materially identical to the circumstances set out in this private ruling; and
· the methodology continues to satisfy the requirements set out at paragraph 73 of GSTR 2006/3.