| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1012619289437
Ruling
Subject: Legal expenses
Question
Are you entitled to claim a deduction for legal expenses incurred in securing your investment portfolio?
Answer
No.
This ruling applies for the following periods:
Year ended 30 June 2011
Year ended 30 June 2012
The scheme commenced on
1 July 2010
Relevant facts and circumstances
You were involved in a family partnership which owned a portfolio of investment properties.
A dispute arose between the partners regarding your share of the portfolio.
The matter was resolved in court where you secured your investment share and increased your income.
Relevant legislative provisions
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 8-1
Reasons for decision
Section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) allows a deduction for all losses and 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, or a provision of the ITAA 1997 prevents it.
A number of significant court decisions have determined that for an expense to be an allowable deduction:
n it must have the essential character of an outgoing incurred in gaining assessable income or, in other words, of an income-producing expense (Lunney v. FC of T; (1958) 100 CLR 478),
n there must be a nexus between the outgoing and the assessable income so that the outgoing is incidental and relevant to the gaining of assessable income (Ronpibon Tin NL v. FC of T, (1949) 78 CLR 47), and
n it is necessary to determine the connection between the particular outgoing and the operations or activities by which the taxpayer most directly gains or produces his or her assessable income (Charles Moore Co (WA) Pty Ltd v. FC of T, (1956) 95 CLR 344; FC of T v. Hatchett, 71 ATC 4184).
In determining whether a deduction for legal expenses is allowable under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, the nature of the expenditure must be considered (Hallstroms Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1946) 72 CLR 634; (1946) 3 AITR 436; (1946) 8 ATD 190). The nature or character of the legal expenses follows the advantage that is sought to be gained by incurring the expenses. If the advantage to be gained is of a capital nature, then the expenses incurred in gaining the advantage will also be of a capital nature. For example, where expenditure relates to an enduring benefit, the expenditure is of a capital nature and the expenses are not deductible.
In your case you incurred legal expenses in relation to securing your investment portfolio. As the underlying cause for the legal expenses lies with the dispute of property ownership between the owners of the property, a capital asset, the associated legal expenses are not sufficiently related to the earning of your assessable income and are therefore not deductible.