Private ruling: non commercial losses
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2010 | Year ending 30 June 2011 | Year ending 30 June 2012 | Year ending 30 June 2013
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2003

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) to allow you to include any losses from your primary production activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2009-10 to 2011-13 financial years? | A1: 

Relevant facts and circumstances: You commenced a primary production business many years ago. You have provided testament from an independent source that income is usually obtained within three and a half to four years in your industry. Your income for non-commercial loss purposes is above $250,000 in the 2009-10 financial year and you expect this will be the case in the 2010-11 to 2012-13 financial years as well.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 35-55(1)(c) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 35-10(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 35-10(2E)

Reasons for decision: Summary: The Commissioner will not exercise his discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 in your case as the commercially viable period for your industry has passed. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: For the 2009-10 and later financial years, section 35-1 of the ITAA 1997 provides that an income requirement must be met (along with certain other tests), in order to include losses from a business activity in your taxable income calculation. If the income requirement is not met, the Commissioner may exercise discretion to allow the inclusion of the losses. You satisfy the income requirement under subsection 35-10(2E) of the ITAA 1997 if your income for non-commercial loss purposes is less than $250,000. In your case, you do not satisfy the income requirement as your income for non-commercial loss purposes is above $250,000 in the 2009-10 financial year and you expect this will be the case in the 2010-11 to 2012-13 financial years as well. The Commissioner's discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) may be exercised for the financial year where there is an objective expectation, based on evidence from independent sources, that your business activity will produce assessable income greater than the deductions attributable to it for that year, within a commercially viable period. For the Commissioner to exercise the discretion you must be able to show that the reason your business activity is producing a loss is inherent to the nature of the business and is not peculiar to your situation. The phrase 'objective expectation' was discussed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal case of Scott v. Commissioner of Taxation [2006] AATA 542; VS2005/31-33, where it was said: …in determining a commercially viable period, the test is primarily an objective one based on independent sources. According to the Commissioner, this approach was taken by the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Eskandari (2004) 134 FCR 569 where Stone J said, at 581-582: In some cases it may be a straight forward exercise to identify the industry in which the business activity takes place. Some industries are well-established and the basis for an ''objective expectation'' can readily be based on a comparison between the tax payer's business and other businesses within that industry, particularly where businesses or business associations within the industry produce material such as annual reports or industry papers ... Despite what Stone J said, Mr Scott contended that there were other circumstances which had to be taken into account when determining the commercially viable period expressed in the Olives Australia document. However, according to the Commissioner, this is impermissible because, as the Federal Court held in Eskandari , in most cases only objective material will be considered. It is only where, because of the nature of the industry, there is very little or no objective evidence that recourse may be had to the circumstances of the tax payer. That is not the case in the olive industry, which has been established for centuries. I agree with that submission. It seems to me that if it were permissible to take into account subjective considerations of each individual grower, there might be an almost infinitely variable period which could be described as the commercially viable period. Further, the choice of business operations was held to be as follows: …the fact that a grower elects not to plant sufficient trees at the outset to ensure the business is commercially viable is a decision for that individual grower. Such a grower could not expect the Commissioner to exercise his discretion under s 35-55 in his or her favour because, to do so, would effectively render nugatory the rule dealing with losses from non-commercial business activities… In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2009 the commercially viable timeframe expectations are as follows: 2.30 The taxpayer is required to establish objectively that the business is commercial in nature and will become profitable in a commercially viable timeframe. Objective evidence from independent sources can include evidence from an individual or organisation experienced in the relevant industry, such as industry or regulatory bodies, tertiary institutions, industry specialists, professional associations, government agencies or other independent entities with a similar successful business activity. Evidence from independent sources can also include evidence from business advisers (such as business plans), financiers and banks. 2.34 For taxpayers that do not meet the income requirement, the Commissioner may exercise a discretion after an application by a taxpayer, where the Commissioner is satisfied that - based on evidence from independent sources - the business will produce assessable income greater than available deductions, in a timeframe that is considered commercially viable for the industry concerned. 2.35 The discretion is not intended to be available in cases where the failure to make a profit is for reasons other than the nature of the business, such as, a consequence of starting out small and needing to build up a client base, or business choices made by an individual that are not consistent with the ordinary or accepted practice in the industry concerned - such as the hours of operation, location, climate or soil conditions, or the level of debt funding. Example 2.5 Tracey carries on a business of primary production from breeding and selling cattle. Their profit projections indicate that they do not expect to make a tax profit for six years. Independent evidence provided by Tracey indicates the lead time period begins from the commencement of the activity and includes the time taken to raise the females to a breeding age, allowing for the gestation period of those animals to finish, and finishes when the progeny have reached a saleable age. On the evidence provided, the period for a typical business activity of breeding and selling cattle to become commercially viable is no greater than three years. Therefore, Tracey will not be able to produce a tax profit within a period that is commercially viable for the industry concerned and the Commissioner will not be able to exercise the discretion to allow the losses. In your case you have provided evidence from independent sources maintaining that the lead time to generate income from your primary production activity is between three and a half to four years. Your business commenced many years previously and this time period is well in excess of the average lead time. It follows that the commercially viable period has expired for the purpose of this private ruling. Following the decision in the case of Scott , the purchase of additional land and your decision to sell only small numbers of stock to gradually increase the number of breeders does not fall for consideration. The Commissioner therefore cannot exercise his discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 for the 2009-10 to 2011-13 financial years because the objective commercially viable period has expired.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.