| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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 written advice
Authorisation Number: 1012717913336
Ruling
Subject: Rental property repairs
Question
Are you entitled to a deduction for work done to correct the subsidence on your rental property?
Answer
Yes.
This ruling applies for the following period
Year ended 30 June 2014
The scheme commenced on
1 July 2013
Relevant facts
You have owned a rental property for a number of years.
You have undertaken work to repair and correct the subsidence in the slab of your property after obtaining a building report which detailed the defects and the work needed to correct the defects.
Relevant legislative provisions
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 25-10
Reasons for decision
Section 25-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 allows a deduction for the cost of repairs to premises used for income-producing purposes. However, subsection 25-10(3) of the ITAA 1997 does not allow a deduction for repairs where the expenditure is of a capital nature.
The word 'repair' is not defined within the taxation legislation. Taxation Ruling TR 97/23 states that the word 'repair' ordinarily means the remedying or making good of defects in, damage to, or deterioration of, property to be repaired (being defects, damage or deterioration in a mechanical and physical sense) and contemplates the continued existence of the property.
In W Thomas & Co v. FC of T (1965) 115 CLR 58, it was held that a 'repair' involves a restoration of a thing to a condition it formerly had without changing its character. It is the restoration of efficiency in function rather than the exact repetition of form or material that is significant.
TR 97/23 indicates that expenditure for repairs to property is of a capital nature where the extent of the work carried out represents a renewal or reconstruction of the entirety. Paragraph 40 of TR 97/23 specifically states that a roof is only part of a building and does not constitute an 'entirety'. The building itself is the 'entirety'. The restumping the building is therefore not capital.
In your case, you have owned the property for a number of years. You have undertaken work to correct the subsidence in accordance with a building report.
As your property is used for income producing purposes and the work done is not an initial repair, is not the replacement of an entirety and is not an improvement, a deduction is allowable.