Private ruling: non-commercial losses
Published: January 2012
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2011
Date scheme commenced: 22 January 1991

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) to allow you to include any losses from your business activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2010-11 financial year? | A1: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: This ruling is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme that is set out below. If your circumstances are materially different from these facts, this ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on your private ruling. You satisfy the <$250,000 income requirement set out in subsection 35-10(2E) of the ITAA 1997. You carry on a domestic housing construction and renovation business in partnership. You have submitted profit and loss information for previous years which showed losses for the majority of years your business has been in operation. In the 2009-10 financial year your builders licence was cancelled as you did not meet the liquidity requirements. Without the licence your business was unable to undertake any additional work and subsequently unable to meet any of the non-commercial loss tests. You submit that if the licence had not been cancelled the business would have met the assessable income test.

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)(a)

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 satisfy the income requirement and you pass one of the four tests · the exceptions apply, or · the Commissioner exercises his discretion. In your situation, none of the exceptions would apply and although you satisfy the income requirement, you do not meet any of the four tests in the years of income under consideration. Your 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 your business activity is affected by special circumstances outside your control. 'Special circumstances' are those circumstances which are sufficiently different to distinguish them from the circumstances that occur in the normal course of conducting a business activity, including drought, flood, bushfire or some other natural disaster. For individuals who satisfy the income requirement, special circumstances are those which have materially affected their business activity, causing it not to meet any of the four tests. In this context, the Commissioner may exercise this discretion for the income year(s) in question where, but for the special circumstances the activity would have passed at least one of the tests. The question of what constitutes 'special circumstances' has been judicially considered on many occasions. In the Federal Court case of Community Services Health, Minister for v. Chee Keong Thoo (1988) 8 AAR 245; (1988) 78 ALR 307, Burchett J considered 'special circumstances' in the context of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and made the following observation: Those discretions are intended to be applied to a great variety of situations. In such a context, the core of the idea of 'special circumstances' is that there is something unusual or different to take the matter out of the ordinary course Later, in the Federal Court Case of Secretary, Department of Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs v. Barrett and Another (1998) 82 FCR 524 'special' was considered in the context of 'special weather conditions' for the purposes of the Austudy Regulations 1990. Tamberlin J observed that: The word 'special' must be read in context. In normal parlance it signifies that the event or circumstances in question are out of the ordinary or normal course. Tamberlin J then quoted the following passage with approval from the AAT case of Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 AAR 362; (1984) 6 ALD 1: An expression such as 'special circumstances' is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend upon the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special. To determine what is 'special circumstances', we need to look at the context in which the phrase is used. Also, it is clear that 'special circumstances' will be something out of the ordinary or unusual. 'Special circumstances' in paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 is used in the context of a situation occurring such that it would be unreasonable for the Commissioner to apply the loss deferral rule for a particular year or years. For this to be the case, it will not only be necessary that an event or situation has occurred which is of itself unusual, but that it has resulted in the business activity failing to pass a test. Clearly, if the business activity would not have passed a test even if the event or situation had not arisen, we cannot say that the business activity was affected by 'special circumstances' in the sense in which this term is used in paragraph 35-55(1)(a), as the Note to the paragraph indicates. In Taxation Ruling TR 2007/6 paragraph 14 states the special circumstances must be outside the control of the operator of the business. Natural disasters are considered special circumstances. In the case of other events, failure for no adequate reason to adopt practices commonly used in industry to prevent or reduce the effects of special circumstances may point to the special circumstances not being outside the control of the operator. Paragraph 47 of TR 2007/6 states that ordinary economic, weather or market fluctuations that might reasonably be predicted to affect the business activity would not be considered to be special circumstances. In application to your case you have requested that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 in the 2008-09 income year. In June 2010 you did not pass the assessable income test as your building license was cancelled as you did not meet the liquidity requirements. The question that must be addressed is whether the cancelling of your license is considered special circumstances. It is not accepted that these circumstances constitute special circumstances in the way this term is used in the legislation. Your business has returned losses in the last seven financial years. The gradual decrease of your liquidity levels as a result of a consecutive years of business losses are considered to be normal risks associated with the running of a business and not uncommon or exceptional circumstances. Furthermore for circumstances to be considered special they must be outside the control of the operator of the business and your level of liquidity is as a result of business decisions you are entitled to make. The Commissioner will not exercise his discretion under paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997. You are therefore required to defer your losses in the 2010-11 financial year.

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.