Private ruling: Assessable income
Date of advice: 9 May 2016
Published: June 2016
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2016
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2015

Ruling: Q1: Is a lump sum payment that you will receive from an income protection policy included in your assessable income? | A1: Yes

Relevant facts and circumstances: You took out a personal insurance policy that included an income protection plan which replaces a percentage of income, paid monthly. You had a medical event which has resulted in you ceasing work some years ago. You made a claim under the insurance policy, and your insurer has paid benefits to you from that time. The decision reached by your own doctor and that of the insurance company is that you may never be able to return to work. An offer of a lump sum payout was made by your insurer, which would finalise the policy and any future claims with them. Negotiations between your representative and your insurer resulted in the original offer being increased by a substantial percentage, which you have accepted. You contend that the final amount which was offered by your insurer was not calculated on the formula in the income protection policy, but instead related to your pain, suffering and medical expenses.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 6-5(2)

Reasons for decision: Summary: Periodic income protection payments Subsection 6-5(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) provides that the assessable income of an Australian resident includes income according to ordinary concepts (ordinary income) derived directly or indirectly from all sources, whether in or out of Australia, during the income year. Based on case law, it can be said that ordinary income generally includes receipts that: • are earned • are expected • are relied upon, and • have an element of periodicity, recurrence or regularity. Payments of salary and wages are income according to ordinary concepts and are included in assessable income under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997. An amount paid to compensate for loss generally acquires the character of that for which it is substituted ( FC of T v. Dixon (1952) 86 CLR 540; (1952) 5 ATR 443;10 ATD 82). Compensation payments which substitute income have been held by the courts to be income according to ordinary concepts ( FC of T v. Inkster 89 ATC 5142; (1989) 20 ATR 1516 and Tinkler v. FC of T 79 ATC 4641; (1979) 10 ATR 411). Therefore periodic payments received during a period of total or partial disability under an income replacement policy are assessable on the same principle as salary and wages. Lump sum payments The issue of whether the redemption or conversion of an entitlement to periodic payments to a lump sum affects assessability was considered in Coward v. FC of T 99 ATC 2166; (1999) 41 ATR 1138. In that case Mathews J found that payments made to replace income take on the character of the payment they replace and that the method of payment does not alter the character of the payment. Mathews J held that as the weekly compensation payments made to the appellant until he turned 65 were paid for loss of earnings and thus constituted income, a lump sum representing redemption of those future weekly payments was also income. This is consistent with the approach taken by the Commissioner in Taxation Determination TD 93/3 which deals with the partial commutation of periodic payments to a lump sum. As outlined in paragraph 4 of TD 93/3, such a commutation would result in the lump sum remaining assessable, as its effect was simply to pay in advance the future weekly payments. This view has also been confirmed in Sommer v FC of T 2002 ATC 4815; 51 ATR 102. The case involved a medical practitioner who had taken out an income protection policy. Following the rejection of the taxpayers claim for income replacement payments of $4000 per month, the matter was settled out of court with the taxpayer receiving a lump sum. The taxpayer argued that the amount was a payment of capital as it was paid in the consideration of the cancellation of the policy, and the surrender of his rights under it or that the payment was capital as it was an undissected aggregation of both income and capital. In dismissing the taxpayers appeal it was held that the payment was in settlement of income claims of the taxpayer in circumstances where the purpose of the insurance policy was to fill the place of a revenue receipt. As a result, the payment was clearly on a revenue account. The fact that the payment was received in one lump sum did not change its revenue character. | Detailed Reasoning - Statutory income: Section 15-30 operates to include in a taxpayer's assessable income any amount received by way of insurance or indemnity for the loss of an amount if the lost amount would have been included in the taxpayer's assessable income but was not assessable under section 6-5. | Detailed Reasoning - Capital gains: While a payment may be properly characterised as ordinary income, a capital gain may still be made and in answering whether a payment is included in your assessable income, it is appropriate to examine these provisions also. However, it should be immediately noted the anti-overlap provisions contained in section 118-20 operate generally to reduce any capital gain by the amount of that income which has been otherwise assessed to you as ordinary income under section 6-5 or statutory income under section 15-30. Part 3-1 contains the capital gains and capital loss provisions commonly referred to as CGT (capital gains tax). You make a capital gain or capital loss if a CGT event happens in respect of a CGT asset. Section 104-25 provides that CGT event C2 happens on the ending of the rights under an insurance policy. The lump sum amount you receive will be capital proceeds for this CGT event and a capital gain will usually arise. The net capital gain you make is then included in your assessable income under section 102-5 (after being reduced by the aforementioned overlap provisions as required). CGT Exemption Paragraph 118-37(1) (b) allows a capital gain to be disregarded if it is compensation or damages you receive for any wrong, injury or illness you suffer personally. This provision would have clear and direct application in relation to an insurance policy against a specific injury or illness. For example, trauma insurance that pays a lump sum if the person loses a limb or suffers a heart attack. Such a payment would be disregarded for CGT purposes under 118-37(1)(b). However, the application of 118-37(1)(b) in relation to other types of personal insurance and in circumstances involving the buying out of the policy or the settling of disputes in relation to a policy may be more problematic. In the case of Purvis v. FC of T [2013] AATA 58, the Administrative Appeal Tribunal considered the tax consequences of a Qantas pilot receiving a lump sum insurance payment for the loss of licence. Although the loss of licence came about as a result of illness or injury, the Tribunal found that the payment did not relate directly to compensation or damages within 118-37(1)(b). The amount was calculated without regard to the nature of the personal injury suffered, save that the personal injury had to result in the loss of licence. In cases where an insurer is seeking to buy out a policy, the payment is intended to compensate the policy holder for the loss of entitlements under the policy, not necessarily to compensate the person for their injury or illness. Underlying asset and Taxation Ruling TR95/35 Where compensation is intended to remedy damage to an asset, taxing of that compensation may prevent the remedy occurring. For example, if you incur $1,000 damage to your car and receive $1,000 in compensation, paying tax on that amount would frustrate the purpose of the compensation. For this reason, it is sometimes necessary to identify the damaged underlying asset that the compensation was intended to remedy, and to consider the capital gains tax consequences of the compensation in relation to that asset. Taxing the compensation for the giving up of an income stream does not create this issue, as the income stream would have itself been taxable. Taxing compensation intended to cover medical benefits, however, may frustrate the purpose of the compensation. In these circumstances it may be appropriate to concede that compensation for the payment of medical costs are sufficiently related to personal illness or injury to be exempt from capital gains under paragraph 118-37(1)(b). Taxation Ruling TR 95/35 deals with the issue of compensation and outlines when it may be relevant to consider the compensation in the context of an underlying asset. If the compensation is received in relation to multiple heads of claim, TR 95/35 allows a reasonable apportionment of that payment. For example, if a payment is intended to replace both an income stream and other potential benefit entitlements, the payment may be apportioned between the two heads of claim on a reasonable basis. However, if the payment is truly an un-dissected lump sum - that is, no reasonable apportionment can be made between the multiple heads of claim - no concessional treatment can be applied unless you are able to prove that the amount received was solely for personal injury. This approach was confirmed in Dibb v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126 which found that no part of a genuinely un-dissected lump sum could be said to be paid in relation to personal injury. The exemption in paragraph 118-37(1)(b) cannot apply if the compensation amount is received as a lump sum (and that lump sum is truly un-dissected) but there were rights to income type payments as well as rights relating to personal injury that are extinguished in the settlement. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: Ordinary income In your case, you held an income protection policy designed to protect and provide income in the event of illness or disability. You were receiving regular payments under the policy and the insurer has offered a lump sum payment to pay out their obligation under the policy. Your situation is similar to Sommer's case in that you received an amount in settlement of income claims against your income protection insurance policy. In Sommer's case it was determined that the payment was revenue despite being paid in a lump sum. The Deed of Release you provided states that an issue arose in relation to the benefit period applicable to the income protection claim. In recital H of the deed of release it states that it was agreed by the parties to resolve the income protection claim and the income protector plan under the policy based on the terms outline in the deed. Therefore, the lump sum payment you receive will be assessable as ordinary income under section 6-5. Statutory income Should the Commissioner have erred in characterising the lump sum payment as ordinary income, the payment would be included in your assessable income under section 15-30 as statutory income. Noting that the periodic receipt of income protection payments is considered ordinary income, the payment is an indemnification of the loss that income; and as such, would be included in your assessable income. Capital gains In this case, your insurer is offering a full and final settlement of any claims under your policy with an undissected lump sum payment. Acceptance of the lump sum will be considered the ending of your rights under the insurance policy. This gives rise to CGT event C2. Therefore the undissected lump sum payment will be assessable as a capital gain and the exemption contained in section 118-37 cannot apply. However as it has been also determined above that the payment that you will receive is assessable as ordinary income or statutory income, the anti-overlap provisions in section 118-20 will operate to reduce the capital gain arising as a result of CGT event C2 by the amount of the income assessed to you under either sections 6-5 or 15-30. The combined effect of sections 6-5, 15-30 and 118-20 is that the receipt will be assessed as ordinary income and the capital gain as a result of the CGT event will be reduced to nil. Should we have erred in characterising the lump sum payment as ordinary or statutory income, the payment would nonetheless be assessable as a capital gain under section 102-5 and the exemption under paragraph 118-37(1)(b) would not apply.