Private ruling: GST and restriction on refund of overpaid GST
Published: September 2013

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise his discretion under section 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA) to refund the incorrectly remitted goods and services tax (GST) to you? | A1: No, the Commissioner will not exercise his discretion to refund you the overpaid goods and services tax (GST) on your supply unless you reimburse the recipients of your supply the overcharged GST.

Relevant facts and circumstances: · You are registered for GST. · You offer both professional and recreational supplies to the general public. Several of your supplies provided award the participants with commercial qualifications which allow them to go on and earn employment in Australia. Without these qualifications they would not be allowed to undertake such employment in a specific industry. Furthermore, the business would not be covered by insurance to undertake commercial activities without having an appropriate qualified staff In your correspondence to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) you have provided that: · You have incorrectly treated the supplies as GST (taxable) supplies over a number of years and now believe that they should have been GST-free. · In calculating the overpaid GST amount, you have considered each supply on its own merit. · You have put in place measures to ensure that the supplies are treated as GST-free. In your later correspondence, you have further advised: · The overpayment of GST was a result of an error in the set-up codes within your accounting system (MYOB).Your previous book keeper was not aware that these supplies are GST-free. As a result, the MYOB files were set up to record a GST liability which was remitted to the ATO in your quarterly business activities statements. In relation to your claim, you have provided the followings documents: · Copies of 4 tax invoices: · In all of the tax invoices provided, the total amount was split into 2 components: Ex GST and Incl GST. The heading at the bottom of the tax invoices: Sub Total Ex: $ GST: $ (10% of the Sub Total Ex)* Total (total of Sub Total Ex and GST) Deposit paid Balance due $ · An extract of a Journal Entry and Recap transaction for the sample tax invoice showing the GST amount collected under GST Collected account.

Relevant legislative provisions: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Subdivision 38- | Section 9-5 | Section 29-70 | Taxation Administration Act 1953 s 105-65 to Schedule 1. Divisions 3 and 3A of Part IIB | S 105-65 of Schedule 1

Reasons for decision: Summary: As the GST embedded in the price of the courses has been passed on to the recipients, the Commissioner will not exercise his discretion to refund the overpaid GST unless you reimburse the recipients of the supply. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Under the general rules the Commissioner is required to give a refund or apply that amount in accordance with the running balance account provisions in Divisions 3 and 3A of Part IIB of the TAA. However, the requirement to give a refund of overpaid GST is subject to section 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the TAA (section 105-65) which modifies the general rules so that the Commissioner need not give a refund or apply that amount if an entity overpaid its net amount or an amount of GST where the requirements of the section 105-65 are satisfied. Subsection 105-65(1) states: (1) The Commissioner need not give you a refund of an amount to which this section applies, or apply (under Division 3 or 3A of Part IIB) an amount to which this section applies, if: (a) you overpaid the amount, or the amount was not refunded to you, because a *supply was treated as a *taxable supply, or an *arrangement was treated as giving rise to a taxable supply to any extent; and (b) the supply is not a taxable supply, or the arrangement was treated as giving rise to a taxable supply, to that extent (for example, because it is *GST-free); and (c) one of the following applies: (i) the Commissioner is not satisfied that you have reimbursed a corresponding amount to the recipient of the supply or (in the case of an arrangement treated as giving rise to a taxable supply) to an entity treated as the recipient; (ii) the recipient of the supply, or (in the case of an arrangement treated as giving rise to a taxable supply) the entity treated as the recipient, is *registered or *required to be registered. Note: * asterisk denotes a defined term in the Act | Detailed Reasoning - Whether subsection 105-65(1) applies to your circumstances: The restriction of refunds of overpaid GST under section 105-65 will apply if all three of the following conditions are present: · there was an overpayment of GST · a supply was treated as a taxable supply when it was not a taxable supply or was taxable to a lesser extent, and · the recipient(s) has not been reimbursed a corresponding amount of the overpaid GST and/or the recipient(s) of the supply is registered or required to be registered for GST. Miscellaneous Tax Ruling MT 2010/1 (MT 2010/1), which was issued on 15 December 2010, provides the view of the Commissioner on the application of section 105-65. Paragraph 20 of MT 2010/1 explains the meaning of 'overpaid'. It states: In the context of 105-65 'overpaid' means the amount that has been remitted must be in excess of what was legally payable on the particular supply in the relevant tax period prior to taking into account or applying section 105-65. Paragraph 21 of MT 2010/1 explains the meaning of 'treated as taxable supply'. It states: In the context of section 105-65 a supply would be treated as a taxable supply where the supplier has mischaracterised a supply as taxable because they believed the supply to be a taxable supply, has dealt with the recipient of the supply as if the supply was a taxable supply and has remitted an amount as GST to the Commissioner on that supply in the calculation of their net amount. A supply would also be treated as a taxable supply where a supplier correctly characterises a supply as GST-free or input taxed but mistakenly includes GST for that supply in the calculation of their net amount. A supply would also be treated as a taxable supply where a supplier correctly characterises a supply as taxable but miscalculates the GST for that supply in the calculation of their net amount. [emphasis added] In your circumstances subsection 105-65 would apply because: · You have mischaracterised your supplies as taxable supplies and have dealt with the recipients of the supply as if the supply was a taxable supply and have remitted an amount of GST to the Commissioner on that supply in the calculation of your net amount. · It follows that as no GST should have been payable on those supplies, the amount legally payable was nil and you have overpaid a GST amount in relation to those supplies. · You have provided that you have not and will not refund the recipients of the overpaid GST amounts. · The recipients are generally not registered or required to be registered for GST. As section 105-65 applies, the Commissioner has no obligation to pay a refund that would otherwise be payable under section 8AAZLF of the TAA. However, it is the view of the ATO that the Commissioner may choose to pay a refund even though the conditions in paragraphs 105-65(1)(a), (b) and (c) are satisfied: Paragraphs 116 and 117 of MT 2010/1 provide that: 116. The operation of section 105-65 to deny the requirement to pay refunds that would otherwise be payable is not discretionary … The words of the provision say that where the section applies the Commissioner need not give you a refund of the amount or apply the amount under the relevant RBA provisions. … 117. The Commissioner considers that the words "need not", in the context of section 105-65, do not prohibit the giving of a refund and accordingly the Commissioner has discretion to pay a refund in appropriate circumstances. This view is supported by the decision in Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Ltd v FC of T 2010 ATC 10-119 at 57 where the AAT referred to 'residual discretion': As to paragraph (c), and accepting of course that subparagraph (ii) cannot apply, it is a fact that the customer has not been "reimbursed" to the extent of the overpayment. The question then becomes whether, in these circumstances , the residual discretion to pay the refund to the Applicant should be exercised. We think it should. [Emphasis added]. Paragraph 128 of MT 2010/1 provides some guiding principles to consider when exercising the discretion. It states: Section 105-65 does not specify what factors are relevant to the exercise of this discretion. In exercising the discretion, the Commissioner will have regard to the following guiding principles: (a) The Commissioner must consider each case based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. (b) The Commissioner needs to follow administrative law principles such as not fettering the discretion or taking into account irrelevant considerations. (c) The Commissioner must have regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of section 105-65. As explained in paragraph 127 of this Ruling, it clear from the scope and purpose that section 105-65 is designed to prevent windfall gains to suppliers and to maintain the inherent symmetry in the GST system and is based on the underlying design feature and presumption of the GST system that the cost of the GST is ultimately borne by the non registered end consumer. (d) The discretion should be exercised where it is fair and reasonable to do so and must not be exercised arbitrarily. The circumstances in which the Commissioner considers it may be fair and reasonable to exercise the discretion include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) The overpayment of GST occurs as a result of arithmetic or recording error made by the supplier. For instance, an entity correctly treated its supply as GST-free when making the supply to the customer. However, when filling out its activity statement the entity incorrectly included the supply as a taxable supply in the calculation of the net amount returned on the activity statement. In such circumstances it would not be necessary for the supplier to refund the recipient of the supply whether the recipient is registered or unregistered. (ii) The overpayment of GST arises as a direct result of the actions of the Commissioner and the taxpayer has not had the opportunity to factor in the cost of the GST or otherwise pass on the GST, for instance through a gross up clause. For instance, an entity had treated its supply as GST-free, the Commissioner subsequently treats the supply as taxable, the entity pays an amount for GST on the supply, but the Commissioner later reverses that decision. In such circumstances it would not be necessary for the supplier to refund the recipient of the supply whether the recipient is registered or unregistered. (iii) The supplier is able to satisfy the Commissioner that an amount corresponding to the refund will be, or has been, passed on to the party that ultimately bore the cost of the overpaid GST. In a business to business transaction it is generally not enough simply to show that the supplier refunded the immediate business recipient. A supplier must be able to prove that an unregistered end consumer is the one ultimately compensated. Where the registered recipient is unable to claim input tax credits or is only allowed to partially claim input tax credits, then, before the Commissioner would pay a refund to the supplier, the supplier would have to refund the registered recipient and the registered recipient would have to show it either did not pass the foreseeable cost (that is denied input tax credits) to the next recipient or that they have also refunded that amount to the next recipient and the entity that ultimately has borne the cost is compensated. The circumstance under sub-paragraph 128(d)(i) applies where the net amount included an overpaid GST because of an arithmetic error. The error in the example was not caused by a mischaracterisation of the supply, only a miscalculation of the GST payable (the status of the supply is treated correctly). The consequence of the error in the paragraph was that the supplier remitted more GST than legally required but the client did not pay any excess GST due to the error. It is noted that in your circumstances you mischaracterised the GST status of the supply and treated the supply as GST payable rather than GST-free. This is not the type of error that the Commissioner would consider exercising his discretion for under sub-paragraph 128(d)(i) of MT 2010/1. | Detailed Reasoning - No windfall: Of relevance to your circumstances is that the Commissioner must have regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of section 105-65. This is explained in paragraph 127 of MT 2010/1 that states: … the provision is designed to prevent windfall gains to suppliers and to require the supplier to ensure that any refund ultimately compensates the person or entity who ultimately bore the cost. In relation to a refund of overpaid GST, the potential or otherwise for a windfall gain, the requirement to ensure the refund compensates the person or entity that ultimately bore the cost and the potential to disturb the symmetry envisaged by the GST system, are factors that must be taken into account in relation to the exercise of the discretion. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Law Amendment (2008 Measures No 3) (which introduced the current version of section 105-65) adds further: 2.2 Without the restriction on refund requirement, there is a potential for windfall gain to arise to businesses that receive the refund of GST but have not borne the incidence of tax. It follows from the above that it is important when exercising the discretion to determine who has borne the burden of the GST. That is, whether a supplier has passed on the GST to the recipients regardless of whether the supply will generate a profit or loss situation. Generally GST on a supply is payable on the price of the supply without considering whether the supply is profitable. When a price of a taxable supply is set or agreed to, GST is included in the price . Whether GST has been passed on is a question of fact and must be determined on a case by case basis taking into account the particular circumstances of each case. A tax invoice issued to a recipient that contains enough information to allow the amount of GST payable in relation to the supply to be clearly ascertained, is prima facie evidence of that part of the excess GST having been passed on. You have provided that it was the error of the book keeper that used the taxable code rather than GST-free code in the tax treatment of your supplies in your accounting system. Whilst this may be an error, in all of the tax invoices provided, the total amount was split into 2 components Ex GST and Incl GST. The heading at the bottom of the tax invoices shows the following: Sub Total Ex: $ GST: $ (10% of the Sub Total Ex)* Deposit paid Balance due $ The sample tax invoices allowed the amount of GST payable in relation to the supply to be clearly ascertained and the recipients all have actually paid the GST-inclusive amount as stated above. In determining who has borne the burden of the GST, the Commissioner takes into consideration the factors outlined in Avon Products Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2006) HCA 29 (Avon). It is considered that the guidance provided by Avon about who bears the burden of the indirect tax impost applies equally in the GST context given the similarity in the sales tax and GST regimes in that respect. In that case the High Court stated, at paragraphs 9 and 12: 9. That sales tax is expected to be passed on depends upon the circumstance that sales of goods occur within an economy geared to making profit … In a profit-making structure, businesses will set prices so as to ensure at least that all foreseeable costs are recovered ... it forms part of the cost structure of doing business...There is nothing extraordinary in the proposition that in the usual course of things sales tax will be passed on … 12. Additionally, once it is appreciated that it is in the nature of sales tax to be passed on, there is nothing remarkable in the consequences that proof to the contrary will occur comparatively seldom … It is noted that for GST purposes, it is the supplier that determines the GST status of the supply. Where a decision was made to treat a supply as taxable, the presumption is that the cost of any GST liability is a foreseeable cost that will be passed on as part of the cost recovery and pricing structure of the supplier. It is for the supplier to prove that the GST has not been passed on. You have been carrying on an enterprise that includes the supplies to the public. In order to be able to maintain viability, you must conduct your enterprise in a business-like manner. Budget control, marketing, accounting, planning, promotional activities and other aspects of management are essential to your existence. It is appropriate to approach the question with reference to your conduct in setting prices based upon your knowledge at the relevant time, including a belief that the GST which later proves to have been an overpayment is a real cost. There are many situations where GST may not consciously be factored into a price by the supplier, but such a failure to consider the GST is not normally sufficient to show that GST has not been passed on. Not explicitly considering the GST at the time of the price setting does not mean that the supplier has not passed on the GST. The ATO does not consider that pricing to a market price means that the supplier has necessarily borne the cost of the GST at the time of pricing or thereafter. We need to be satisfied that you have borne the cost of GST rather than passed it on the recipients, considering that your supply has been mischaracterised for a number of years. This would require very specific information on your business model, cost structure and pricing structure. Paragraphs 126 to 129 of MT 2010/1 would guide you in providing the relevant information. In the absence of other information to the contrary, the Commissioner considers that the basis used to arrive at the price would have taken into account the fact that the price was set in the belief that GST was payable and was a real cost of carrying the enterprise. Therefore, GST has been included in the price and accordingly has been borne by the recipient (as intended by the GST regime). This view is further supported by the fact that you believed at the time that you would be liable for GST on the supply. Section 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the TAA contains a discretion which the Commissioner may choose to exercise in certain limited circumstances to allow the refund. Your circumstances do not fall into the limited circumstances for the Commissioner to exercise the discretion.