Private ruling: CGT - taxable supply
Date of advice: 7 November 2024
Published: 16 December 2024
Date scheme commenced: XX/XX20XX

Ruling: Q1: Did you make a taxable supply pursuant to section 9-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act) when you sold a duplex unit to your parents and relative and was GST payable on the supply? | A1: No. | Q2: Did you make a capital gain from CGT event A1 under section 104-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) when you sold a duplex unit to your parents and relative? | A2: Yes. This private ruling applies for the following period: Income year ended 30 June 20XX The scheme commenced on: XX/XX20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances: 1. You are a full-time, sole trader, working in the health industry. 2. You are an Australian resident for income tax purposes. 3. You are registered for the goods and service tax (GST) and you carry on an enterprise in the health industry. 4. You purchased the Property in XX/20XX and moved into the Property soon after settlement. 5. You were registered for GST at the time of acquiring the Property. 6. At the time you purchased the Property the zoning code allowed you to build 2 duplex units on the Property. 7. Your intention at the time of acquiring the Property was to make it your main residence. However soon after moving into the Property, you relocated for work multiple times until 20XX. 8. The Property was rented out for many years. 9. You moved back to the Property in 20XX and used it as your main residence for a few years. The reason for moving back to the Property was because your financial situation had improved, and you no longer needed to rent the Property to support the mortgage repayments. 10. In late 20XX, you lodged an application with the Council to subdivide the Property for the purpose of building 2 duplex units. 11. At the time of lodging the application, your purpose for building the duplex units was for your parents and relatives to live in one duplex unit and for you to live in the other duplex unit. 12. Your parents owned and lived at Property X. 13. Both your relatives owned and lived at Property Y. 14. You state: When constructing the duplex units, you did not focus on whether or not you would make money from the planned subdivision. You did not even mind outright gifting the duplex unit to your parents and relatives. Your parents brought XX up well, so had no expectation whatsoever of being paid for providing a new home for your parents and relatives. You decided to build the duplex units so that your parents and relatives could physically live near you, due to their advanced age. You were concerned about the well-being and welfare of your elderly parents and relatives. 15. You engaged qualified professionals to undertake the project and did not undertake any of the activities yourself. A building company prepared the specifications and undertook the construction over several years. 16. You made the decision on the design of both duplex units but sought input from your parents and relatives on various fittings relating to their duplex unit. 17. You have never been engaged in any building, property speculation or other real estate development enterprises or business ventures. You have never engaged in any previous activity of property buying, for the purpose of resale at a profit. 18. You did not complete, undertake or provide us any planning documents, such as projected cash flow statements, projected financials, financial or economic modelling, budgets or business plans for the development activity. 19. The construction took longer than anticipated. 20. During the period of construction of the duplex units, you lived at a friend's house. 21. In early 20XX, Relative 2 was diagnosed with a terminal illness that resulted in both relatives moving into your parents' home for support whilst your parent was going through treatment. 22. The Council endorsed the subdivision plan in late 20XX and it was registered soon after. 23. Two months later, the building construction was completed and final additional works were completed a few months later. You then moved into your duplex unit as your main residence. 24. You did not claim any income tax deductions for any of the expenses incurred in constructing the duplex unit transferred to your parents and relative, nor did you claim any GST input tax credits on the costs incurred in the construction of this duplex unit. 25. The relatives listed Property Y for sale when Relative 2 was diagnosed with a terminal illness. However, due to the run-down state of their property it did not sell before Relative 2 passed away in early 20XX. However, in or around late 20XX, when Relative 2 was not responding to treatment, the relatives decided to transfer their property to you. 26. Your parents did not place their house, Property X, on the market and decided to transfer it to you in late 20XX. 27. Your relative and parents faced a difficult predicament as they did not feel right you simply gifting the duplex unit to them. However, with the relatives' property being in a run-down state, they failed to attract a buyer. In the circumstances, the family decided that the best way to have them living close to you was for your parents and relatives to transfer their properties to you at market value and for them to buy a duplex unit from you. 28. Your sibling moved into the duplex unit in early 20XX, soon after Relative 2's passing, paying rent to you until June 20XX to help pay the mortgage. 29. In XX 20XX, you entered into a contract for the sale of one of the duplex units with your parents and relative as tenants in common with settlement taking place a month later. 30. You did not treat the sale of the duplex unit as a taxable supply for GST purposes. 31. Your parents and relative moved into the duplex unit in soon after settlement. 32. You owned several investment properties and a medical centre, in addition to the duplex unit used by you as your main residence.

Relevant legislative provisions: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section9-5 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 paragraph9-5(a) | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 paragraph9-5(b) | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 paragraph9-5(c) | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 paragraph9-5(d) | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section9-20 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 paragraph9-20(1)(a) | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 paragraph9-20(1)(b) | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 9-40 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Division38 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Division40 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 6-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 6-5(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 6-10(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 10-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 70-10(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 104-10 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 104-10(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 104-10(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 104-10(3) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 108-5

Reasons for decision: Summary: No, you did not make a taxable supply when you sold a duplex unit as all elements of section 9-5 were not satisfied. This is because the sale of the duplex unit was not made in the course or furtherance of an enterprise that you carried on. As such, GST was not payable on the supply of the duplex unit. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: 1. Section 9-40 provides that you will be liable to pay the GST payable on any taxable supply that you make. 2. Section 9-5 provides that you make a taxable supply if: (a) you make the supply for consideration (b) the supply is made in the course or furtherance of an enterprise that you carry on (c) the supply is connected with the indirect tax zone (Australia), and (d) you are registered, or required to be registered, for GST. 3. However, the supply is not a taxable supply to the extent that it is GST-free or input taxed. 4. Divisions 38 and 40 provide for certain supplies to be GST-free and input taxed respectively. 5. On the facts presented, we do not consider Divisions 38 and 40 to be applicable in relation to the sale of the duplex unit. Accordingly, the sale would not be a GST-free or an input taxed supply. 6. Therefore, where you satisfy all the conditions set out in paragraphs 9-5(a) to (d), your supply of the duplex unit would be taxable. 7. In this instance, your supply of the duplex unit was made for consideration, the duplex unit is located in the indirect tax zone (Australia) and you were registered for GST at the time of the supply. As such, paragraphs 9-5(a), 9-5(c) and 9-5(d) were satisfied. 8. Given the above, the remaining issue is to determine whether your supply of the duplex unit was made in the course or furtherance of an enterprise that you carried on. | Detailed Reasoning - Carrying on an enterprise: 9. The term 'enterprise' is defined for GST purposes under section 9-20 and includes, among other things, an activity or series of activities done: • in the form of a business (paragraph 9-20(1)(a)), or • in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (paragraph 9-20(1)(b)). 10. The phrase 'carry on' in the context of an enterprise includes doing anything in the course of the commencement or termination of the enterprise. 11. Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT 2006/1 The New Tax System: the meaning of entity carrying on an enterprise for the purposes of entitlement to an Australian business number (MT 2006/1) contains the Commissioner's view on what constitutes an enterprise for the purpose of eligibility for an Australian Business Number. Goods and Services Tax Determination GSTD 2006/6 Goods and services tax: does MT 2006/1 have equal application to the meaning of 'entity' and 'enterprise' for the purposes of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999? provides that the discussion in MT 2006/1 applies equally to the term enterprise as used in the GST Act and can be relied on for GST purposes. | Detailed Reasoning - In the form of a business: 12. Paragraphs 170 to 179 of MT 2006/1 discuss factors to consider when determining whether an activity or series of activities are done in the form of a business. 13. Paragraph 176 of MT 2006/1 provides that the meaning of 'business' is considered in Taxation Ruling TR 97/11 Income tax: am I carrying on a business of primary production? (TR 97/11). Although TR 97/11 deals with carrying on a primary production business, the principles discussed in TR 97/11 apply to any business. 14. Paragraphs 177 to 179 of MT 2006/1 discuss the main indicators of carrying on a business, and state: Indicators of a business 177. To determine whether an activity, or series of activities, amounts to a business, the activity needs to be considered against the indicators of a business established by case law. 178. TR 97/11 discusses the main indicators of carrying on a business. Based on that discussion some indicators are: • a significant commercial activity; • a purpose and intention of the taxpayer to engage in commercial activity; • an intention to make a profit from the activity; • the activity is or will be profitable; • the recurrent or regular nature of the activity; • the activity is carried on in a similar manner to that of other businesses in the same or similar trade; • activity is systematic, organised and carried on in a businesslike manner and records are kept; • the activities are of a reasonable size and scale; • a business plan exists; • commercial sales of product; and • the entity has relevant knowledge or skill. 179. There is no single test to determine whether a business is being carried on. Paragraph 12 of TR 97/11 states that 'whilst each case might turn on its own particular facts, the determination of the question is generally the result of a process of weighing all the relevant indicators.' TR 97/11 can be referred to for a fuller discussion on whether a particular activity constitutes the carrying on of a business. 15. In this case, we have taken into consideration the guidelines on indicators of carrying on a business, the detailed reasoning provided under question 2 below, and all the relevant facts of this case, and we consider that the activities you have undertaken do not amount to a business. | Detailed Reasoning - In the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade: 16. Paragraph 234 of MT 2006/1 distinguishes between activities done in the form of a business and those done in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. A business encompasses trade engaged in on a regular basis. An adventure or concern in the nature of trade includes an isolated or one-off transaction that does not amount to a business, but which has the characteristics of a business deal. 17. Paragraph 244 explains that an adventure or concern in the nature of trade includes a commercial activity that does not amount to a business, but which has the characteristics of a business deal. Such transactions are of a revenue nature. However, the sale of the family home, car and other private assets are not, in the absence of other factors, adventures or concerns in the nature of trade. The fact that the asset is sold at a profit does not, of itself, result in the activity being commercial in nature. 18. Paragraphs 258 to 260 of MT 2006/1 provide that certain type of assets, such as rental properties, business plant and machinery, the family home, family cars and other assets are considered as investment assets. These assets are purchased with the intention of being held for a reasonable period of time, as income-producing assets or for the pleasure or enjoyment of the person. The mere disposal of these investment and private assets does not amount to trade. Assets can change their character from investment to trade, however, these assets cannot be held at the same time for both purposes. 19. Paragraph 262 of MT 2006/1 acknowledges that the question of whether an entity is carrying on an enterprise often arises where there are 'one-offs' or isolated real property transactions. Paragraph 263 continues stating that the issue to be decided is whether the activities being conducted are an enterprise in that they are of a revenue nature as they are considered to be activities of carrying on a business or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (profit making undertaking or scheme) as opposed to the mere realisation of a capital asset. 20. Paragraph 247 to 261 of MT 2006/1 outline some factors to determine whether the sale of an asset could be considered as a mere realisation of a capital or investment asset. The factors are: (a) length of period of ownership (b) frequency or number of similar transactions (c) supplementary work on or in connection with the property (d) circumstances that were responsible for the realisation, and (e) motive. 21. Paragraph 266 of MT 2006/1 provides that in determining whether activities relating to isolated transactions are an enterprise or are the mere realisation of a capital asset, it is necessary to examine the facts and circumstances of each particular case. No single factor will be determinative; rather it will be a combination of factors that will lead to a conclusion as to the character of the activities. 22. In your case, you purchased the Property in 20XX with the initial intention to treat the Property as your main residence. However, due to factors such as the well-being and welfare of your aged parents and relatives, you made the decision to subdivide the Property to construct 2 duplex units, and retain one duplex unit as your main residence, and transfer the other duplex unit to your parents and relative under a family arrangement. The duplex unit transferred would be the main residence of your parents and relative. 23. Given the facts of this case, we consider your activities of acquiring, developing and selling the developed duplex unit to your parents and relative do not amount to an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. You were merely disposing a private asset for the purpose of relocating both your parents and relative within closer proximity due to their welfare. As such, we consider that your activities in respect of the duplex unit were not done in the course or furtherance of an enterprise you carried on. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: 24. As you were not carrying on an enterprise in relation to the sale of the duplex unit, paragraph 9-5(b) was not satisfied and the sale of the duplex unit to your parents and relative was not a taxable supply pursuant to section 9-5, and GST was not payable on the supply. All legislative references made in question 2 are to the ITAA 1997 unless otherwise stated. | Detailed Reasoning - Question 2: Did you make a capital gain from CGT event A1 under section 104-10 when you sold a duplex unit to your parents and relative? | Summary: CGT event A1 happened when you entered into a contract to sell the duplex unit to your parents and relative. | Detailed Reasoning - Is the profit made from the sale of the duplex considered to be ordinary or statutory income?: 25. The profit made from the sale of the duplex can be treated for taxation purposes in the following ways, as: (a) ordinary income under section 6-5 as a result of carrying on a business of property development, involving the sale of property as trading stock (b) ordinary income under section 6-5 as a result of an isolated commercial transaction with a view to profit, or (c) statutory income under the capital gains tax (CGT) legislation, as a mere realization of a capital asset. | Detailed Reasoning - Ordinary income - held as trading stock and sold as part of carrying on a business: 26. Trading stock is defined in subsection 70-10(1) as anything produced, manufactured or acquired that is held for purposes of manufacture, sale or exchange in the ordinary course of business, and includes livestock. 27. Therefore, whether the sale of the duplex is trading stock will require a determination that the sale was made in the course of carrying on a business. 28. The question of whether a business is being carried on is a question of fact and degree. 29. As outlined earlier, TR 97/11outlines the factors to be considered in determining whether a taxpayer is carrying on a business. 30. Whilst each case might turn on its own particular facts, the determination of the question is generally the result of a process of weighting all the following relevant indicators that has been decided from various court decisions: [1] (a) whether the activity has a significant commercial purpose or character (b) whether the taxpayer has more than just an intention to engage in business (c) whether the taxpayer has a purpose of profit as well as a prospect of profit from the activity (d) whether there is repetition and regularity of the activity (e) whether the activity is of the same kind and carried on in a similar manner to that of the ordinary trade in that line of business (f) whether the activity is planned, organised and carried on in a businesslike manner such that it is directed at making a profit (g) the size, scale and permanency of the activity, and (h) whether the activity is better described as a hobby, a form of recreation or a sporting activity. 31. Each of these indicators is examined below in the context of the facts in this case. | Detailed Reasoning - Significant commercial purpose or character: 32. In showing a business is being carried on, it is important the taxpayer is able to provide evidence that shows there is a significant commercial purpose or character to the activity, i.e., the activity is carried on for commercial reasons and in a commercially viable manner. [2] 33. This indicator is closely linked to the other indicators and is a generalisation drawn from the interaction of the other indicators, in particular, to the size and scale of activity, the repetition and regularity of activity and the profit indicators. A way of establishing there is a significant commercial purpose or character is to compare the activities with those of a taxpayer who is carrying on a similar activity that is a business. Any knowledge, previous experience or skill of the taxpayer in the activity, and any advice taken by the taxpayer in the conduct of the business should also be considered but are not necessarily determinative: see Thomas v. FC of T 72 ATC 4094; (1972) 3 ATR 165. [3] 34. Paragraph 30 in TR 97/11 lists a number of factors to show if there is a significant commercial purpose or character. In going through these factors, it does not indicate or show that you had a significant commercial purpose or character in constructing and transferring the duplex unit to your parents and relative. In particular, you wanted to gift the duplex unit to your parents and relative but they refused to accept the duplex unit as a gift and instead transferred properties to you. | Detailed Reasoning - The intention of the taxpayer: 35. Paragraph 39 in TR 97/11 states: [4] The intention of the taxpayer in engaging in the activity is a relevant indicator...However, a mere intention to carry on a business is not enough. There must be activity... 36. Your intention for constructing 2 duplex units was for you to live in one and have your parents and relatives live next to you to provide them care and support. That is, you had no intention to engage in business but to enter into a family arrangement where your parents and relative lived next to you. | Detailed Reasoning - Prospect of Profit: 37. It is important a taxpayer is able to show how the activity can make a profit. Paragraph 48 in TR 97/11 states: [5] Stronger evidence of an intention to make a profit occurs when the taxpayer has conducted research into his/her proposed activity, consulted experts or received advice on the running of the activity and the profitability of it before setting up the business. 38. From the information provided there is no evidence to indicate you constructed the duplex unit with the intention to make a profit. Your motivation for carrying out the subdivision was to have your parents and relative live next to you and not to profit from the activity. Whilst you did make a profit from your parents and relative transferring their properties to you, this happened as they did not wish for you to gift them the duplex unit and your relatives being unable to sell their run-down property. | Detailed Reasoning - Repetition and regularity: 39. Paragraph 48 in TR 97/11 states: [6] It is often a feature of a business that similar sorts of activities are repeated on a regular basis. The repetition of activities by the same person over a period of time on a regular basis helps to determine whether there is the 'carrying on' of a business. 40. You are a full-time medical practitioner and stated that you have never been engaged in any building, property speculation or other real estate development enterprises or business ventures. Is the activity of the same kind and carried on in a manner that is characteristic of the industry? 41. Paragraph 63 in TR 97/11 states: [7] An activity is more likely to be a business when it is carried on in a manner similar to that in which other participants in the same industry carry on their activities... 42. In considering this indicator, paragraph 64 in TR 97/11 lists a number of factors that might be compared with the characteristics of others engaged in the same type of business. In going through these factors, it is clear that you did not carry out the property development in a manner that is characteristic of the industry. You work in the health industry who engaged qualified professionals to undertake the project and did not undertake any of the activities yourself. | Detailed Reasoning - Organisation in a business-like manner and the use of system: 43. Paragraph 68 in TR 97/11 states: [8] In Newton v. Pyke the court suggested that business should be conducted systematically. A business is characteristically carried on in a systematic and organised manner rather than on an ad hoc basis. An activity should generally conform with ordinary commercial principles to amount to the carrying on of a business. 44. From the information provided, you have not carried out this activity in a business-like manner or used a system to indicate that you were carrying on a business. As you have never engaged in any building, property speculation or other real estate development enterprises or business ventures you engaged qualified professionals to undertake the development. | Detailed Reasoning - Size or scale of the activity: 45. Paragraph 77 in TR 97/11 states: [9] The larger the scale of the activity the more likely it will be that the taxpayer is carrying on a business of primary production. However, this is not always the case. The size or scale of the activity is not a determinative test, and a person may carry on a business though in a small way ( Thomas at ATC 4099; ATR 171). 46. The smaller the scale of the activity the more important the other indicators become when deciding whether a taxpayer is carrying on a business. [10] 47. You decided to construct 2 duplex units on the Property so that you could live in one and your parents and relative could live in the other. | Detailed Reasoning - Hobby or recreation: 48. Paragraph 86 in TR 97/11 states: [11] The pursuit of a hobby is not the carrying on of a business for taxation purposes. Money derived from the pursuit of a hobby is not regarded as income and therefore is not assessable. 49. From the information provided, it is clear you did not build the duplex unit in pursuit of a hobby or for recreation purposes. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: 50. After examining all of the above indicators, it is our view the construction and sale of the duplex unit was not done in a way that it could be considered to be in the ordinary course of carrying on a business, such that the duplex unit is considered trading stock and the profit made from the sale of the duplex unit would be considered to be ordinary income under subsection 6-5(1). | Detailed Reasoning - Ordinary income - isolated transaction: 51. The High Court's decision in FC of T v The Myer Emporium Ltd 87 ATC 4363 clearly establishes that the profit arising from an isolated business transaction will be of an income nature if the taxpayer's purpose in entering into the transaction was to make a profit, notwithstanding that the transaction was extraordinary judged by reference to the ordinary course of the taxpayer's business. 52. Isolated transactions are considered to be transactions outside the ordinary course of business of a taxpayer carrying on a business, as well as transactions entered into by non-business taxpayers. 53. Taxation Ruling TR 92/3 Income tax: Whether profits on isolated transactions are income (TR 92/3), provides guidance in determining whether profits from isolated transactions are assessable under section 6-5 as ordinary income. 54. TR 92/3 relevantly states: 6. Whether a profit from an isolated transaction is income according to the ordinary concepts and usages of mankind depends very much on the circumstances of the case. However, a profit from an isolated transaction is generally income when both of the following elements are present: (a) the intention or purpose of the taxpayer in entering into the profit-making transaction was to make a profit or gain, and (b) the transaction was entered into, and the profit was made, in the course of carrying out a business or carrying out a business operation or commercial transaction. 7. The relevant intention or purpose of the taxpayer (of making a profit or gain) is not the subjective intention or purpose of the taxpayer. Rather, it is the taxpayer's intention or purpose discerned from an objective consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It is not necessary that the intention or purpose of profit-making be the sole or dominant intention or purpose for entering into the transaction. It is sufficient if profit-making is a significant purpose. 9. The taxpayer must have the requisite purpose at the time of entering into the relevant transaction or operation. If a transaction or operation involves the sale of property, it is usually, but not always, necessary that the taxpayer has the purpose of profit-making at the time of acquiring the property. 12. For a transaction to be characterised as a business operation or a commercial transaction, it is sufficient if the transaction is business or commercial in character. 13. Some matters which may be relevant in considering whether an isolated transaction amounts to a business operation or commercial transaction are the following: (a) the nature of the entity undertaking the operation or transaction; (b) the nature and scale of other activities undertaken by the taxpayer; (c) the amount of money involved in the operation or transaction and the magnitude of the profit sought or obtained; (d) the nature, scale and complexity of the operation or transaction; (e) the manner in which the operation or transaction was entered into or carried out; (f) the nature of any connection between the relevant taxpayer and any other party to the operation or transaction; (g) if the transaction involves the acquisition and disposal of property, the nature of that property; and (h) the timing of the transaction or the various steps in the transaction. 16. If a taxpayer not carrying on a business makes a profit, that profit is income if: (a) the intention or purpose of the taxpayer in entering into the profit-making transaction or operation was to make a profit or gain; and (b) the transaction or operation was entered into, and the profit was made, in carrying out a business operation or commercial transaction. 55. You have stated that you decided to build 2 duplex units on the Property so that you could live in one and your parents and relatives could live in the other. Due to your parents and relatives advanced age, you were concerned for their well-being and welfare and wanted them living next to you. The transfer of the duplex unit to your parents and relative was a family arrangement and you never contemplated selling the duplex unit on the open market or for a profit. In fact, you wanted to gift the duplex unit to your parents and relative, but they refused to accept the duplex unit as a gift. 56. As concluded earlier, it is our view the construction and sale of the duplex unit and the profit made, was not done in a way that it could be considered to be in the ordinary course of carrying on a business. 57. Therefore, neither of the elements in paragraph 6 in TR 92/3 have been satisfied. It is our view you did not make a profit from an isolated transaction that is ordinary income. | Detailed Reasoning - Statutory income - capital gains tax: 58. Amounts that are not ordinary income but are included in your assessable income by provisions about assessable income, are called statutory income. [12] 59. The table in section 10-5 provides a comprehensive listing of the relevant statutory provisions and includes capital gains. 60. CGT event A1 in subsection 104-10(1) happens if you dispose of a CGT asset. 61. CGT assets are defined in section 108-5 and includes land and buildings. 62. You dispose of a CGT asset if a change of ownership occurs from you to another entity, whether because of some act or event or by operation of law. [13] 63. The time of the event happens when you enter into the contract for the disposal. [14] 64. As a duplex unit falls within the definition of a CGT asset and you disposed of a duplex unit to your parents and relative, CGT event A1 happened when you entered into the contract for the disposal of the duplex unit to them. [1] Paragraph 13 in TR 97/11. [2] Paragraph 28 in TR 97/11. [3] Paragraph 29 in TR 97/11. [4] Paragraph 39 in TR 27/11. [5] Paragraph 48 in TR 97/11. [6] Paragraph 55 of TR 97/11. [7] Paragraph 63 in TR 97/11. [8] Paragraph 68 in TR 97/11. [9] Paragraph 77 in TR 97/11. [10] Paragraph 82 in TR 97/11. [11] Paragraph 77 in TR 97/11. [12] Subsection 6-10(2). [13] Subsection 104-10(2). [14] Subsection 104-10(3).

Reasons for decision: All legislative references made in question 1 are to the GST Act unless otherwise stated. | Question 1: Did you make a taxable supply pursuant to section 9-5 when you sold a duplex unit located to your parents and relative and was GST payable on the supply?