Edited version of your private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1012592616109

Ruling

Subject: Income tax exempt entities- not for profit and mutual organisations

Question 1

Is the methodology for allocating expenses between company X (X) and company Y (Y) acceptable for the purposes of X claiming a deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 for salary and wages incurred in generating a Service Fee?

Answer

Yes.

Question 2

In the event that X and Y were to form a tax consolidated group, would the methodology for allocating expenses between mutual and non-mutual expenses for the proposed consolidated group continue to be appropriate for the purposes of the proposed head entity claiming a deduction under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for salary and wages incurred in generating a Service Fee?

Answer

Yes.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

Year ending 30 June 2014

Year ending 30 June 2015

Year ending 30 June 2016

Year ending 30 June 2017

The scheme commences on:

The scheme has commenced.

Relevant facts and circumstances

1. X and Y operate together as XY Group

2. From a legal perspective, X owns all ownership interests in Y.

3. Expenditure incurred in generating mutual receipts is not an allowable a deduction to X.

4. X's taxable income (e.g. investment income) is taxed at the general corporate tax rate of 30%.

5. Y generates X income from X members, as well as income generated from investment assets, which it holds.

6. All of Y's income is taxed at the corporate rate of 30%, and the mutuality principle does not apply to any of Y's income.

7. X and Y have not formed a tax consolidated group. Therefore, the profit and loss of each entity is determined separately, and transactions between each entity for taxation purposes are not ignored.

8. Staff costs incurred by X on behalf of Y are reimbursed by way of a management fee between the two entities. X incurs the management fee expense, and Y recognises an equivalent income amount in its stand-alone accounts.

Employees

9. X employs all staff of the XY group.

10. Y has no employees of its own, other than its Managing Director.

11. A significant portion of X's salary and on-cost spend is actually incurred in respect of services performed in supporting Y's activities.

12. Y incurs the management fee expense, and X recognises an income amount in its stand-alone accounts.

MIGA group revenue

13. The main sources of revenue for XY Group are:

· Fees paid by members to X for general membership services;

· Insurance Premiums on policies provided by Y; and

· Investment income (e.g. dividends and interest).

14. The Service Fee is a reimbursement of Finance and Administration costs incurred by X on behalf of Y.

15. The Service Fee costs include staff costs and other overheads, as outlined below.

The Service Fee

16. Currently, to the extent that X incurs expenses that relate to the activities of Y, the correct commercial outcomes for both entities can only be obtained by way of a 'cost recovery' arrangement i.e. by X "on-charging" costs initially incurred by it to Y.

17. According to the XY Group, this is commercially appropriate because the costs were originally incurred for the purpose of managing the X business.

18. For accounting purposes, "on-charging" is achieved by way of the Service Fee, which is payable by Y to X. There is no mark-up on this fee. Costs incurred by X are reimbursed by Y at cost, to the extent that they relate to Y's activities.

19. From a tax perspective, this results in an amount of income earned by X (Service Fee income) and an equal and offsetting expense amount to Y.

Calculation of Management Fee

20. As previously noted, the Service Fee is recovered at cost. Therefore, it is necessary to identify which specific costs that are incurred by X actually relate to the Y business.

21. The amount of the Service Fee is determined with reference to an "expense allocation" method.

22. There have been no significant changes in the circumstances of the taxpayers' business model since the previous Private Ruling application. The taxpayers have therefore applied the "fixed percentage method' again in this Ruling application.

23. In accordance with Appendix 3A of the Private Ruling application, the costs giving rise to the Service Fee are drawn largely from the "Consolidated Operating Expenses", in particular, the Finance and Administration Expenses.

24. The costs fit broadly into two categories:

· Staff costs (salary and wages and on-costs); and

· Other operating expenses.

Approach for allocation of staff expenses

25. The XY group is a financial services and member organisation. Therefore, a significant proportion of the overall operating expenses of the group (approximately X%) are salary and wages and on-costs.

26. In respect of labour costs incurred by X, the taxpayer advises that the majority of these labour costs (Y%) relate to services provided by Y, and that activities and services undertaken by X require minimal resources and expenditure (Z%).

27. Although X provides a number of valuable services, the nature of these services and the frequency with which members access these services mean that the provision of the services are not labour or resource intensive, whereas the services provided by Y are relatively labour and resource-intensive.

28. The apportionment of expenses not directly attributed to a particular source of income is heavily weighted towards Y, rather than X.

Salary and wages of operating departments

29. Of the total salaries and wages expenses incurred at the ground level, approximately half are incurred by the operating departments.

Salary and wages of non-operating departments

30. The CEO and Corporate Services Department provides managerial, financial and administrative support to both X and Y.

31. The expenses of the non-operating departments are allocated to Y (by way of a Management Fee) in a manner that is consistent with the allocation at the operating department level.

Relevant legislative provisions

Section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

Section 8-2 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

Section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

Section 703-15(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

Subsection 703-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

Reasons for decision

Issue 1

Methodology for allocating expenditure between mutual and non-mutual receipts

Question

Is the methodology for allocating expenses between X and Y acceptable for the purposes of X claiming a deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) for salary and wages incurred in generating a Service Fee?

Summary

The methodology for allocating expenses between X and Y is acceptable for the purpose of X claiming a deduction under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), as it reasonably and accurately reflects X and Y's revenue and expenses.

The information provided by the applicants supports the view that a greater proportion of expenditure is incurred by Y, rather than X. However, the exact proportion allocated to X or Y will need to be determined each accounting period, based on the extent of the actual activities undertaken by each organisation.

Detailed reasoning

In accordance with section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) you can deduct from your assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that:

a) It is incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income; or

b) It is necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing your assessable income.

However, section 8-2 of the ITAA 1997 provides that you cannot deduct a loss or outgoing to the extent that:

a) It is a loss or outgoing of capital or of a capital nature; or

b) It is a loss or outgoing of a private or domestic nature; or

c) It is incurred in relation to gaining or producing your exempt income or your non-assessable non-exempt income; or

d) A provision of this Act prevents you from deducting it.

Expenses incurred in deriving mutual receipts are not deductible under section 8-1(1) of the ITAA 1997, because they are not incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, and they are not incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income.

More explicitly, mutual receipts are not income according to ordinary concepts, and as such, they are not caught under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997 as 'ordinary income'. Because mutual receipts are not considered ordinary income, they are excluded from the positive limbs of section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, and deductions against mutual receipts are not allowed.

Based on the facts, it is proposed that the expenses incurred will be apportioned between X and Y in the following way:

· Where expenses can be specifically identified as being incurred by X or Y, then it is appropriate to allocate the expenses directly to that specific organisation, or section within the entity, that has incurred the expense;

· In respect of labour costs incurred by X, the majority of the labour costs (Y%) relate to services provided by Y, and the activities and services undertaken by X require minimal resources and expenditure (i.e. Z%); and

· The apportionment of expenses not directly attributed to a particular source of income is heavily weighted towards Y, rather than X (further detail provided in Appendix 3 of the Private Ruling application).

Notwithstanding the above, when an expense cannot be identified as being incurred by X or Y specifically, then a method of apportionment needs to be determined. Determining a method of apportionment will only be required when expenses cannot be identified as specifically relating to mutual or non-mutual receipts.

Taxation Determination TD 93/194 income tax: how should a licensed club apportion expenses when calculating its taxable income? (TD 93/194) examines the apportionment of expenses between mutual and non-mutual activities of a licensed club.

Paragraph 2 of TD 93/194 sets out the acceptable methodologies for allocating expenditure between mutual and non-mutual receipts, including a discussion on the 'reasonable basis method', as discussed below:

Clubs may, for the purposes of calculating taxable income, adopt an alternative technique where there is a reasonable basis to do so (e.g. better recording system of member/non-member spending) and provided it reasonably and accurately reflects the club's income for the year in question.

As recognised by the applicants in their Private Ruling application, although TD 93/194 relates specifically to clubs, the principles set out in that ruling are also relevant to other taxpayers.

ATO guide for taxable non-profit organisations Mutuality and taxable income (NAT 73436-07.2010) discusses the issue of apportionment at pages 31 to 34, stating that:

· The method (or methods) your organisation chooses must reasonably and accurately reflect its revenue and expenses;

· An organisation may use one or more methods to separate its apportionable items for the year in question; and

· You may, for the purposes of calculating taxable income, adopt another method of apportionment where there is a reasonable basis to do so and provided it reasonably and accurately reflects your organisation's revenue or expenses for the year in question.

Case law: the apportionment principle

The method of apportioning income has been discussed in a number of cases, with most relying on the basis that non-member receipts as a portion of total income are used to apportion deductions.

In Case K16 78 ATC 154 different methods of apportionment were applied in respect of general operating and interest outgoings incurred by a credit union, which had derived both non-assessable and assessable income. The method of apportionment was found to be acceptable, but it was also found that, in arriving at a fair method of apportionment, the Commissioner should not necessarily apply a single method of apportionment.

Case W45 89 ATC 435 explained that a method of apportionment based on a percentage of member floor space to total floor space of an exhibition was found to be an acceptable method.

The Commissioner's method of apportioning expenditure was upheld in Adelaide Racing Club Incorporated v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 13 ATD 361. The racing club derived revenue from various sources, including member subscriptions, entrance charges paid by non-members, nomination and acceptance fees from members and non-members which wished to race their horses, lump sum payments by caterers, and fees paid by broadcasting stations. A portion of the club's revenue also came directly or indirectly from members who attended its race meetings.

The Commissioner accepted revenue from members as non-assessable, and made a dissection of the club's expenditure, treating certain items as applicable to revenue from members, and certain items as directly applicable to income from non-members. The remainder of the expenditure and depreciation, which was deductible, was calculated in accordance with the specific formula (the formula was provided)

In upholding the Commissioner's apportionment, Owen J said that, in such a case, the Commissioner was faced with a difficult problem under the general deduction provision to determine the extent to which outgoings where incurred in gaining or producing assessable income.

His honour explained that, although the method adopted by the Commissioner was subjected to considerable criticism, and various alternative bases had been suggested by Counsel for the club, he believed that they were at least equally open to criticism and produced varying results. Therefore, his Honour was not satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner was wrong. Anderson J stated [at 4165]:

Where a particular cost covers more than one activity, an allocation must be made. If, finally, some residuum of a particular item is left, which does not admit of precise allocation to any activity, it must between the various activities on a basis which is equitable.

In accordance with ATO publications, rulings, and the case law on the topic of allocating expenses between the mutual and non-mutual activities of an organisation, it is generally accepted that a single method of apportionment will not automatically apply in each case.

It has been submitted by the applicants that it is arbitrary to apportion the expenses of the XY group simply on the basis of the non-mutual income 'as a percentage of' total income, given that a detailed analysis of each class of expenditure can be performed by the taxpayer (as explained in Appendix 3 of the Private Ruling application).

Further, the applicants argue that the analysis performed by the XY group classifies each class of expense into one of the three categories outlined in TD 93/194 (paragraph 2), being:

a) Non-allowable expenses- those expenses relating specifically to members;

b) Wholly allowable expenses- including those expenses relating specifically to assessable income (e.g. investment expenses); and

c) Partially allowable expenses- those expenses that cannot be identified as being wholly allowable or non-allowable.

Where the expenditure falls into the third category, the XY group proposes to apportion the expenditure based on the apportionment methods outlined in Appendix 3 of the Private Ruling application, and detailed below:

In respect of labour costs incurred by X, the taxpayer advises that the majority of these labour costs (Y%) relate to services provided by Y, and that activities and services undertaken by X require minimal resources and expenditure (Z%).

Based on the facts:

· X mainly receives mutual receipts from members that are not subject to taxation, as they are not ordinary income under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997; and

· Y's receipts are income according to ordinary concepts, and as such assessable income.

The allocation of expenditure between X and Y becomes a question of appropriately allocating expenditure between mutual and non-mutual receipts, or activities.

It has been summarised by the applicants that, although X provides a number of valuable services to members, the nature of these services, and the frequency with which members access these services, means that the provision of the services is not as labour or resource-intensive. Therefore, the apportionment of expenses not directly attributed to a particular source of income is heavily weighted towards Y, rather than X.

In accordance with the above, the methodology for allocating expenses is acceptable in the circumstances, as it reasonably and accurately reflects the XY group's revenue and expenses, and provides a more accurate reflection of the allocation between mutual and non-mutual income.

Issue 2

Impact of consolidation on the methodology for allocating expenditure between mutual and non-mutual receipts

Question

In the event that X and Y were to form a tax consolidated group, would the methodology for allocating expenses between mutual and non-mutual expenses for the proposed consolidated group continue to be appropriate for the purposes of the proposed head entity claiming a deduction under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for salary and wages incurred in generating a Service Fee?

Summary

The XY group is not currently a consolidated group for taxation purposes. However, if the group were to consolidate, the methodology for allocating expenses between X and Y would continue to be appropriate.

As explained in issue 1 of the Private Ruling, the allocation process is essentially that of allocating expenditure between mutual-and non-mutual receipts or activities. This process would, in substance, remain the same if X and Y were to consolidate.

Detailed reasoning

Based on the information provided by X and Y in their Private Ruling applications, X is eligible to be the head company of a tax consolidated group in accordance with section 703-15(2) of the ITAA 1997, as all of the items in the table to that section are satisfied, including the fact that:

· The entity is a company, and some of its taxable income is assessed at the corporate tax rate;

· It is an Australian resident; and

· It is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of another entity eligible to be a head company.

Entities that are specifically excluded from being a member of a consolidated or consolidatable group, because of the way their income is treated for income tax purposes, are outlined in subsection 703-20 of the ITAA 1997. Entities that are subject to the principle of mutuality are not included on this list.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the New Business Tax System (Consolidation) Act (No. 1) 2002 explains that companies subject to the mutuality principle are no longer excluded from being head companies of a consolidated group. Therefore, any amount received by a subsidiary member of that company is no longer ignored, and is assessable income of the consolidated group.

ATO Interpretive Decision ATO ID 2006/325 Income Tax Consolidated Group: mutuality principle (ATO ID 2006/325) explains that, where the principle of mutuality applies to the head company of a consolidated group, insurance premiums received by an insurance company that is a member of the group, but not of itself a mutual entity, are not mutual receipts.

For taxation purposes, transactions between members of a consolidated group (i.e. a management fee) are ignored. Therefore, if the XY group were to consolidate, for taxation purposes, it is accepted that:

· Management fees incurred by Y from X would not be a deduction;

· Management fees received by X from Y would not be assessable income; and

· The tax treatment of expenditure incurred outside the consolidated group would retain its character and still need to be allocated between the mutual and non-mutual receipts of the group.

Consolidation would not change the character of receipts and expenditure incurred by entities that are not part of the tax consolidated group:

· Mutual receipts and expenditure would retain their character as mutual receipts and expenditure, and

· Non-mutual receipts and expenditure would retain their character as non-mutual receipts and expenditure.

As such, the allocation between mutual and non-mutual expenditure currently undertaken to allocate expenditure between X and Y would, in substance, remain the same if a consolidated group were formed.

Conclusion

If the XY group consolidates for taxation purposes, the principle of mutuality will continue to apply to the mutual receipts and expenditure of the group.

In determining whether staff, or other costs, incurred by X are attributable to the generation of mutual income from members, or the generation of assessable income from sources other than members (for instance, insurance premiums) will be a question of fact, to be determined by the members of the group (as explained in issue one of this Private Ruling application).

Therefore, in accordance with the above, the allocation of expenses between X and Y will continue to be appropriate if they tax consolidate. However, the expenses incurred by the consolidated group will still need to be analysed to determine the mutual and non-mutual receipts, as discussed at issue one of the Private Ruling.