Private ruling: Subdivision of land
Date of advice: 18 September 2019
Published: December 2019
Ruling period: Year ending 30 June 2020 | Year ending 30 June 2021 | Year ending 30 June 2022 | Year ending 30 June 2023
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2019

Ruling: Q1: Will the proceeds from the sale of your land subdivision constitute the mere realisation of a capital asset and fall for consideration under the CGT provisions in Part 3-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA1997)? | A1: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You are the owner of land that you previously used in farming operations (the Land). You are now retired from farming. Several years ago, you submitted plans to the local council to subdivide the Land in two stages. Stage 1 comprises of less than 10 blocks. Stage 2 involves subdividing the remaining portion of land; however, you are not planning to commence work on stage 2 at this time. At the time you originally submitted the subdivision plan you anticipated that you would only be required to complete minimal infrastructure. Approval of the subdivision has been delayed due to the council assessing and determining that additional civil works and infrastructure are required to be undertaken by you as a condition of the development. As a consequence, you have been granted an extension of your planning permit. You expect that the subdivision plan will be registered within the next 6 to 12 months allowing the blocks to be sold. You will not be undertaking any of the required works yourself and you will engage third party contractors to undertake all of the required works. The development works will be financed partly through savings and partly through the sale of other property owned by you. Apart from a previous two block development, you have not undertaken any other subdivisions or property development.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 6-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Part 3-1 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 10-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 102-5

Reasons for decision: Summary: On the facts provided, we do not consider that the proposed activities will constitute the carrying on of a business of land development. Any profit on the sale of the subdivided lots will be as a result of a mere realisation of a capital asset and will fall for consideration under the capital gains tax (CGT) provisions in Part 3-1 of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: There are three ways profit from property sales can be treated for taxation purposes: (1) As ordinary income under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997 as a result of carrying on a business of property development. (2) As ordinary income under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997, as a result of an isolated business transaction entered into by a non-business taxpayer or outside the ordinary course of business of a taxpayer carrying on a business. (3) As statutory income under the CGT legislation, (sections 10-5 and 102-5 of the ITAA 1997), on the basis that a mere realisation of a capital asset has occurred. | Detailed Reasoning - Carrying on a business of property development: The question of whether a business is being carried on is a question of fact and degree. The courts have developed a series of indicators that are applied to determine the matter on the facts. Taxation Ruling TR 97/11 provides the Commissioner's view of the factors used to determine if you are in business for tax purposes. These factors are: · whether the activity has a significant commercial purpose or character · whether the taxpayer has more than just an intention to engage in business · Whether the taxpayer has a purpose of profit as well as a prospect of profit from the activity · whether there is regularity and repetition of the activity · whether the activity is of the same kind and carried on in a similar manner to that of ordinary trade in that line of business · whether the activity is planned, organised and carried on in a business-like manner such that it is described as making a profit · the size, scale and permanency of the activity, and · whether the activity is better described as a hobby, a form of recreation, or sporting activity. In determining whether a taxpayer is carrying on a business, no one indicator will be decisive. The indicators must be considered in combination and as a whole. Whether a business is being carried on depends on the large or general impression gained from looking at all the indicators and whether these indicators provide the operations with a commercial flavour. | Detailed Reasoning - Isolated transactions: Profits on the sale of land can be income according to ordinary concepts, or the result of a profit making undertaking or plan, if your activities become a separate business operation or commercial transaction. In determining whether a transaction amounts to a business operation or commercial transaction, the Commissioner's guidelines are set out in paragraph 13 of Taxation Ruling TR 92/3. The factors relevant to your case are as follows: · the nature of the entity undertaking the operation or transaction; · the nature and scale of other activities undertaken by the taxpayer; · the amount of money involved in the operation or transaction and the magnitude of the profit sought or obtained; · the nature, scale and complexity of the operation or transaction; · the manner in which the operation or transaction was entered into or carried out; · the nature of any connection between the relevant taxpayer and any other party to the operation or transaction; · if the transaction involves the acquisition and disposal of property, the nature of that property; and · the timing of the transaction or the various steps in the transaction. The fact that in realising an asset a taxpayer engages in activities which are planned, organised and may produce profits considerably more than could otherwise have been obtained, does not necessarily mean that an advantageous realisation converts into a profit-making scheme. The cases of Casimaty v. Commissioner of Taxation 97 ATC 5135; (1997) 37 ATR 358 ( Casimaty ) and McCorkell v FC of T Re 39 ATR 1112;98 ATC 2199 demonstrate that in circumstances where there is an absence of profit making intention when land is acquired, the likelihood of any profit made on the eventual sale of land being income according to ordinary concepts is greatly diminished. In Casimaty the taxpayer acquired a farming property on which he erected a homestead and conducted a primary production business. Because of growing debt and ill health, the taxpayer had to subdivide and sell off a large part of the property. The proceeds from the subdivisions and sales were not assessable as the taxpayer acquired and continued to hold the property for use as a residence and the conduct of the business of primary production. A related consideration was the fact that the land was developed and subdivided on a piecemeal basis in response to the exigencies of increasing debt and deteriorating health. Accordingly, the subdivisions were considered to have occurred as part of the mere realisation of a capital asset. In Casimaty , Ryan J also discussed Stevenson v FC of T 91 ATC 4476; (1991) 29 FCR 282, under the periscope of established principles found in other cases. Here, the fact that the taxpayer 'not only obtained finance but he risked it' was mentioned as a fact that could, together with other factors, distinguish a business case from 'where an area of land is merely divided into several allotments'. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: In applying the factors in TR 97/11 to your circumstances, it is considered that you are not carrying on a business of property development. In reviewing whether your land subdivision activities amount to a profit making undertaking or plan, the relevant factors in your case can be summarised as follows: · there is not a complex structure involved; · the property was not purchased for investment or development purposes and had no other purpose than farming; · the property has been held in its present state for a significant period of time; · you will not undertake any works on the Land apart from what is necessary by the municipal authorities; · the scale of the subdivision is relatively small; and · your involvement in the subdivision process will be limited to appointing contractors to undertake the work; · you have not previously undertaken any other property subdivisions or developments, apart from a small two block development. It is considered that the nature of your activities will not amount to a profit making undertaking or plan and the disposal of the subdivided lots will amount to a mere realisation of a capital asset. Accordingly, any profit on the sale of subdivided lots will fall for consideration under the CGT provisions in Part 3-1 of the ITAA 1997.