Private ruling: Deductibility of insurance premiums
Published: April 2017
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2010 | Year ended 30 June 2011 | Year ended 30 June 2012 | Year ended 30 June 2013 | Year ended 30 June 2014 | Year ended 30 June 2015 | Year ended 30 June 2016
Date scheme commenced: 2010

Ruling: Q1: Can premiums paid for Life Insurance be tax-deductible in equal parts over 5 years pursuant to subsection 40-880 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A1: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You obtained a loan from a bank. The bank required that you maintain Life Insurance over the life of the director and Life Insurance with extra Cover over the life of an employee as a condition for providing the loan. The insurance policy was taken out with an insurance provider. The policy owner and beneficiary of the insurance policies is the bank from whom you obtained the loan.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) subsection 40-880.

Reasons for decision: Summary: Can premiums paid for Life Insurance be tax-deductible in equal parts over 5 years pursuant to subsection 40-880 of the ITAA 1997? | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Subsection 40-880(2)(a) states that you can deduct, in equal proportions over a period of 5 income years starting in the year in which you incur it, capital expenditure you incur in relation to your business. In considering the phrase 'in relation to' contained within subsection 40-880(2)(a) of the ITAA 1997, paragraph 2.25 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 states: The provision is concerned with expenditure that has the character of a business expense because it is relevantly related to the business. The concept used to establish this character or requisite relationship between the expenditure incurred by the taxpayer and the business carried on (current, past or prospective) is 'in relation to'. The connector 'in relation to' allows the appropriate latitude to enable the deductibility of qualifying capital expenditure incurred before the business commences or after it has ceased. The phrase 'in relation to' was considered by the High Court in PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301. Brennan CJ, Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed, in considering the application of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1985 (NT), at 313: Inevitably, the closeness of the relation required by the expression 'in or in relation to' in s 48 of the Act, indeed, in any instrument - must be ascertained by reference to the nature and purpose of the provision in question and the context in which it appears. In that case Toohey and Gummow JJ also observed: It is apparent that the words 'in or in relation to' are particularly wide. ... Cases concerning the interpretation of this phrase in other statutory contexts are of limited assistance. However, the cases do show that the words are prima facie broad and designed to catch things which have sufficient nexus to the subject. The question of sufficiency of nexus is, of course, dependent on the statutory context. (at 330) ... The connection which is required by the phrase 'in relation to' is a question of degree. There must be some "association" which is "relevant" or "appropriate". The question of the relevance or appropriateness of the connection is a question which cannot be divorced from the particular statutory context. (at 331) In First Provincial Building Society Limited v. FC of T 95 ATC 4145; (1995) 30 ATR 207, Hill J. considered the phrase 'in relation to' within the context of paragraph 26(g) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 . He considered the words 'in relation to' in that context included a relationship that may either be direct or indirect, provided that the relationship consisted of a real connection, but that a merely remote relationship is insufficient (at ATC 4155; ATR 218). It is therefore necessary to consider the legislative context of subsection 40-880(2) of the ITAA 1997 in order to determine whether there is a sufficient and relevant connection between the incurrence of the expenditure and the taxpayer's business. In discussing the types of business capital expenditure to which subsection 40-880(2) of the ITAA 1997 applies, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 states: 2.19. Expenditure on the structure by which an entity carries on (or used to or proposes to carry on) their business and on the profit yielding structure of the business would ordinarily be expected to be of a capital nature. Capital expenditure can also relate to a business's trading operations or the entity that will carry on the business. 2.20. The structure covers the legal entity (such as a company) or the legal relationship (such as a partnership or trust) that is the entity that carries on the business for a taxable purpose and that holds the business assets. These paragraphs indicate that capital expenditure incurred on the structure by which an entity carries on (or used to or proposes to carry on) their business, on the profit yielding structure of the business, or relating to the business's trading operations, are capable of being described as capital expenditure incurred 'in relation to' that business for the purposes of subsection 40-880(2) of the ITAA 1997. Whether such capital expenditure is incurred 'in relation to' the particular business will depend on whether there is a sufficient and relevant connection between the incurring of the expenditure and that business on the facts of the particular case. You maintained the insurance policy in order to secure the bank loan for business purposes. There has been a sufficient and relevant connection between the payment of insurance premiums and the business. Accordingly, the capital expenditure was incurred by the taxpayer in relation to its business for the purposes of subsection 40-880(2)(a) of the ITAA 1997. None of the limitations and exceptions contained in subsections 40-880(3) to 40-880(9) of the ITAA 1997 apply. Therefore the capital expenditure is deductible over a period of five years.