Private ruling: non-commercial losses
Published: March 2012
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2010
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 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 primary production business activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2009-10 financial year? | 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 carry on a primary production business. Your five year plan includes the following goals: industry certification, revegetation of waterways and gullies and infrastructure development. The property was in a very run down state when purchased. You live on the property with your family. You have provided information in relation to certification. When purchased the land was depleted and had no infrastructure.

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 phrase 'objection 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, in the case of Scott , additional plantings made at a later time were not permitted to be included in the commercially viable period, 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. The sole reliance on objection 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. Further, the Explanatory Memorandum provides the following relevant example: Joe earns in excess of $250,000 and has a substantial rural property which he and his wife visit most weekends. The property has a family residence and sheds and, apart from one area of the property where a few goats are kept, is otherwise developed with nut trees. Joe planted a large number of nut trees on the land in 2007, and has been claiming his losses from this activity, having passed the real property test in prior years. As his income is higher than $250,000, Joe applies to the Commissioner seeking the exercise of the discretion in new paragraph 35-55(1)(c) to allow him to access his losses in 2009-10. In support of his application, Joe provides a letter from the secretary of the Nut Tree Growers' Association that states that yields from that number and type of trees would ordinarily be sufficient to allow Joe to make a profit within about six years. This is the industry norm for growers of that type of nut tree. However, because the soil on the property is not very fertile and the site does not get a lot of sun, Joe accepts that the lead time for his particular nut-growing activity will be nine years not six years. Joe otherwise manages his nut tree orchards in accordance with industry management practices. Having examined the case, the Commissioner concludes that, despite the large number of trees on the property and the fact that the business is being conducted in accordance with industry management practices, the discretion should not be exercised in Joe's favour. This is because the lead time for this activity to become profitable is greater than the industry norm: the failure to make a profit within a commercially viable period is due to factors that are peculiar to Joe's local environment. Despite the fact that these factors are out of Joe's control, and the fact that the activities are otherwise carried on in a commercially viable way, the excessive lead time before making a profit for Joe's activities are caused by the poor soil quality and lack of sunlight. The Commissioner does not exercise the discretion in Joe's favour because there is an excessive lead time before making a profit, when compared to other businesses in the industry. You have provided independent evidence in relation to the relevant commercially viable period. You intend to make a tax profit outside this time. Therefore the Commissioner cannot exercise his discretion in your case because you expect to make a tax profit outside the commercially viable period for your industry.

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.