Private ruling: Non-commercial losses
Published: February 2012
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 | Year ended 30 June 2017 | Year ended 30 June 2018 | Year ended 30 June 2019
Date scheme commenced: 1 June 2006

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 to allow you to include any losses from your business activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2009-10 to 2012-19 financial years? | A1: 

Relevant facts and circumstances: You do not satisfy the <$250,000 income requirement set out in subsection 35-10(2E) of the ITAA 1997. You commenced business as a property developer. You have initial rezoning approval for some blocks of land on the site subject to the rezoning document being passed local council. You plan to build houses on the land. You submit that there have been development issues unique to the location of the development resulting in an extended period of time before income is produced.

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

Reasons for decision: Summary: For the 2009-10 and later financial years, Division 35 of the ITAA 1997 will apply to defer a non-commercial loss from a business activity unless: § you meet the income requirement and you pass one of the four tests § the exceptions apply § the Commissioner exercises his discretion. In your situation, you do not satisfy the income requirement (that is, your taxable income, reportable fringe benefits and reportable superannuation contributions but excluding your business losses, exceeds $250,000) and do not come under any of the exceptions. Your business losses are therefore subject to the deferral rule unless the Commissioner exercises his discretion. The relevant discretion may be exercised for the income year in question where: § it is in the nature of your business activity that there will be a period before a tax profit can be produced § there is an objective expectation your business activity will produce a tax profit within the commercially viable period for your industry. The discretion under paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 intended to cover a business activity that has a lead time between the commencement of the activity and the production of any assessable income. For example, an activity involving the planting of hardwood trees for harvest, where many years would pass before the activity could reasonably be expected to produce income. The test to determine a commercially viable period is primarily an objective one based on independent sources. The phrase 'objective expectation' was discussed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal case of Scott v. Commissioner of Taxation [2006] AATA 542; VS2005/31-33 ( Scott) , where it was said: 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. The sole reliance on objective evidence and the impermissibility of subjective considerations was further emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2009 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. You have asked the Commissioner to exercise his discretion in relation to lead time for the 2009-10 to 2018-19 financial years. You have provided no independent evidence as to the commercially viable period for your industry. However you state that time you will take to produce income is extended due to unique developmental concerns. These factors are unique to your situation and not issues that are inherent to your industry. They are subjective and impermissible considerations, as affirmed in the cases of Stone and cannot be used as determinative factors in this private ruling. As the unique developmental issues will mean that the time taken by you to return a profit will be outside the commercially viable period for your industry the Commissioner is unable to exercise the 'lead time' discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 with respect to the 2009-10 to 2018-19 financial years.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.