Private ruling: Non-commercial losses - Commissioner's discretion
Published: March 2013
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2012
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2011

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 farming activity in calculating your taxable income for the relevant year of income? | A1: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You have not satisfied the income requirement as your adjusted taxable income has exceeded $250,000. You operate a farm of X hectares. You crop Y hectares per annum of grain and you run sheep. In the relevant year an agronomist predicted your crop would have a good yield if you received 25mm of rain. The rainfall did not occur. Rainfall occurred and downgraded some of the grain.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 35-55(1)(a)

Reasons for decision: Summary: For the 2009-10 and later income 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, 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 you do not come under any of the exceptions. Your business losses are therefore subject to the deferral rule unless the Commissioner exercises his discretion. For individuals who do not satisfy the income requirement, the business activity must have been materially affected by the special circumstances, causing it to make a loss. In this context, the Commissioner may exercise this discretion for the income year in question where, but for the special circumstances: · your business activity would have made a tax profit · the activity passes at least one of the four tests or, but for the special circumstances, would have passed one of the four tests. Paragraphs 43 to 47 of Taxation Ruling TR 2007/6 provide the Commissioner's view regarding special circumstances: No exhaustive definition of 'special circumstances' is provided in the ITAA 1997. However, the term has received considerable judicial consideration in respect of other legislation. In the case Community Services Health, Minister for v. Chee Keong Thoo (1988) 78 ALR 307; (1988) 8 AAR 245 Burchett J considered 'special circumstances' in the context of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and made the following observation at ALR 324: 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... In the case Employment, Education, Training Youth Affairs, Department of v.Barrett (1998) 82 FCR 524; (1998) 52 ALD 499; (1998) 27 AAR 291 'special' was considered in the context of 'special weather conditions' for the purposes of the Austudy Regulations 1990. Tamberlin J observed at FCR 530 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 went on to say: The AAT observed in Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1 at 3 (which was approved by the Full Court in Beadle v.Director of Social Security ) (1985) 60 ALR 225): 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. In the context of Division 35, where the income requirement is satisfied, special circumstances are ordinarily those affecting the business activity such that it is unable to satisfy a test and it would be unreasonable for the loss deferral rule to apply. Subject to paragraphs 48 and 53 of this Ruling, ordinary economic, weather or market fluctuations that might reasonably be predicted to affect the business activity would not be considered to be special circumstances. These fluctuations are expected to occur on a regular or recurrent basis when carrying on a business activity and affect all businesses within a particular industry. However, substantial unexpected fluctuations of a scale not regularly encountered previously may qualify on a case by case basis. Failure of rainfall to occur as forecast is considered to be an ordinary event of weather prediction and is not considered to be a special circumstance as this term is used in paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997. The late rainfall event created a loss of revenue but does not equate to the total loss for the year. Therefore you would not have made a profit but for the special circumstances of the rainfall event. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: Special circumstances were not present in the relevant year of income when the forecast rain did not eventuate. Furthermore although the rainfall event is considered a special circumstance, the Commissioner's discretion under paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 cannot be exercised as a profit would not have been made but for the special circumstances.