Private ruling: Business activity
Published: July 2014
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2013 | Year ended 30 June 2014 | Year ended 30 June 2015
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2012

Ruling: Q1: Are you carrying on a business? | A1: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You have been actively looking for business properties and land. You intended to make a profit from renting out and reselling business property. You have conducted periodic research of the property market, land valuations and have consulted with a number of real estate agencies. You purchased land and built a factory on the land. You have made a profit from renting out the property each year. You frequently contact agents in maintaining the current property and you are looking to acquire new properties. You intended to resell it for a profit in accordance with your business plan. The business plan has not been fully implemented due to your divorce. You have an ABN and are registered for GST. You continually research opportunities to acquire land with the view to increasing the scale of your activities. You intend to dispose of the property in the near future.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 995-1

Reasons for decision: Summary: Section 995-1 of the ITAA 1997 defines 'business' as 'including any profession, trade, employment, vocation or calling, but not occupation as an employee'. Normally the receipt of income from the letting of property to a tenant(s) does not amount to the carrying on of a business ( Wertman v. Minister of National Revenue (1964) 64 DTC 5158; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. McDonald (1987) 15 FCR 172; 87 ATC 4541; 18 ATR 957 ( McDonald's Case ); Cripps v. FC of T 99 ATC 2428 ( Cripps' Case ); Case X48 90 ATC 384; (1990) 21 ATR 3389). Whether the letting of property amounts to the carrying on of a business will depend on the circumstances of each case, ( Californian Copper Syndicate (Limited and Reduced) v. Harris (1904) 5 TC 159). A person who simply co-owns an investment property or several investment properties is usually regarded as an investor who is not carrying on a rental property business, either alone or with other co-owners. This is because of the limited scope of the rental property activities and the limited degree to which a co-owner actively participates in rental property activities. A conclusion that an individual is carrying on a business of letting property would depend largely upon the scale of operations. If rent was derived from a number of properties or from a block of apartments, that may indicate the existence of a business (paragraph 5 of IT 2423). The issue of whether individuals are carrying on a business of letting property has been considered in a number of cases, some of which are discussed below. In Cripps v. FC of T 99 ATC 2428; (1999) 43 ATR 1202, the taxpayer and his wife purchased, as joint tenants, 14 townhouses which they rented out. They also purchased a property which was used initially as a holiday home but was later periodically rented out. A further property was purchased for residential purposes. After a failed attempt to sell it, it was also rented out. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that the taxpayer and his wife were mere passive investors and were not in the business of deriving income from rental properties. They rejected the taxpayer's argument that he had greater involvement with his 16 properties. In 11 CTBR (OS) Case 24 (Case 24) , the taxpayer's income included rents from three properties. The taxpayer employed a manager and an accountant - he was principally a letting clerk with authority to refuse tenants. He collected and banked rents, attended to repairs and supervised them, and controlled the caretaker and cleaners. He kept books in connection with rents and repairs, and rates and other outgoings. The taxpayer said he personally carried out the principal part of the management of his rent-producing properties and directed policy, attended to the financial arrangements and made decisions regarding repairs. The taxpayer claimed that he was carrying on a business. In holding that he was not carrying on a business, a majority of the members of the Board of Review said: It is obvious that some measure of supervision and management must ordinarily be exercised by a property owner who lets offices, &c., and if that does not amount to the carrying on of a business, the fact that he employs others to assist him, either in the letting of the properties or in the preparation of the accounts relating to his rents and outgoings, will not make any difference. For the foregoing reasons we are unable to uphold the claim that the taxpayer is engaged in a 'business as property owner' ... . In 15 CTBR (OS) Case 26 , ( Case 26 ) the taxpayer derived income substantially from her joint ownership of a block of flats (containing 22 living units) with her sister-in-law. A swimming pool was shared with a neighbouring block of flats owned by the taxpayer's husband and his brother. A garden was maintained and a staff of one caretaker and one cleaner employed on both buildings with casual labour as required. The building was erected and financed by F & Co., the husbands of the joint owners, in the course of their business as building contractors. The general supervision of letting, rent collecting, servicing and maintenance was carried out by the owners or by F & Co. on their behalf. No charge was made by F & Co. for the extensive assistance given in the supervision of the flats. It was held that a business was not being carried on by the owners of the block of flats. On the other hand, Case G10 75 ATC 33 ( Case G10 ), the taxpayer owned two properties of which six units were let as holiday flats for short term rental. The taxpayer, with assistance from his wife, managed and maintained the flats. Services included providing furniture, blankets, crockery, cutlery, pots and pans, hiring linen and laundering of blankets and bedspreads. The taxpayer also showed visiting inquirers over the premises, attended to the cleaning of the flats on a daily basis, mowing and trimming of lawns, and various other repairs and maintenance. The taxpayer's task in managing the flats was a seven day a week activity. The Board of Review held that the activity constituted the carrying on of a business. Taxation Ruling TR 97/11 incorporates the general factors. Its principles are not restricted to questions of whether a primary production business is being carried on. In the Commissioner's view, the factors that are considered important in determining the question of business activity are: • whether the activity has a significant commercial purpose or character • whether the taxpayer has more than just an intention to engage in business • whether the taxpayer has a purpose of profit as well as a prospect of profit from the activity • whether there is regularity and repetition of the activity • whether the activity is of the same kind and carried on in a similar manner to that of ordinary trade in that line of business • whether the activity is planned, organised and carried on in a businesslike manner such that it is described as making a profit • the size, scale and permanency of the activity, and • whether the activity is better described as a hobby, a form of recreation or sporting activity. TR 97/11 states the indicators must be considered in combination and as a whole and whether a business is being carried on depends on the 'large or general impression gained' ( Martin v. FC of T (1953) 90 CLR 470 at 474; 5 AITR 548 at 551) from looking at all the indicators, and whether these factors provide the operations with a 'commercial flavour' ( Ferguson v. FC of T (1979) 37 FLR 310 at 325; 79 ATC 4261 at 4271; (1979) 9 ATR 873 at 884). However, the weighting to be given to each indicator may vary from case to case. As shown in the above cases and the views of the Commissioner listed above, the indicators with the greatest weighting are the scale or volume of operations and the repetition and regularity of the activities. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: In this case, although you are in frequent contact with agents to maintain the property, the level of repetition and regularity of the activity is not as great as that noted in Casse G10 where the taxpayer rented out short term holiday units. Your involvement is similar to those circumstances noted in Case 26. In this case, despite the management and maintenance activities undertaken, the property owners were not considered to be carrying on a business. Further, where the property owners grant exclusive possession of the property to the residents the relationship between the two parties is one of tenant and landlord. This activity is more likely to be passive investment rather than a business. Similarly, activities constituting the mere maintenance of an asset and the mere collection of income do not indicate the existence of a business. You are renting out the building to tenants; hence we consider the relationship is that of a landlord and tenant. Having regards to the size and scale of an activity, the business should be large enough to make it commercially viable. In Cripps' Case , it was held that the renting of 14 two storey townhouses was not a business and in McDonald 's Case it was held that the letting of two units in different strata plans was also not a business. Similarly in Cases 24 and 26 the renting of 22 units and three properties respectively was also not considered a business. In this case the scale of your activities is far less than Cases 24 and 26 which were not considered a business. We acknowledge that you perform activities required for the managing and maintenance of the properties. However, the undertaking of managing and maintenance, level of involvement, scale of activity and volume of operation in the activity is far less extensive than the tasks noted in Case G10 . The circumstances surrounding the management and maintenance are similar to the owners noted in Case 26 which was not considered to be a business. Having given consideration to the relative business indicators and the facts of case, we do not consider that you are carrying on a business.