Private ruling: Capital gains tax and the sale of a property used solely for income tax exempt purposes
Date of advice: 27 September 2018
Published: November 2018
Ruling period: 1 July 20XX to 30 June 20XX
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 20XX

Ruling: Q1: Can the Taxpayers disregard any capital gain or capital loss that may arise on the sale of a property used solely for income tax exempt purposes? | A1: Yes

Relevant facts and circumstances: The XX Foundation (the Foundation) is a charitable organisation and exempt from income tax. Its head office is located in A but it has also organised charitable activities for its members in B. The B branch of the Foundation wanted to purchase a property and use it as its permanent office for servicing its members. As the Foundation did not have sufficient financial capacity to apply for a mortgage loan at the time, its B branch sought assistance from a number of its members (C) and a property was purchased in C’s names and used as security for the mortgage loan. The deposit was funded by the Foundation and its B members. The mortgage repayments have been serviced by the B branch. The title holders, C, have never occupied the property or utilised it for other private purposes. The property has always been used solely for conducting charitable activities in B. The B branch was incorporated as the YY Society (the Society) and also granted income tax exempt status. It has been servicing the mortgage repayments and maintaining its affiliate relationship with the Foundation. The Society has been advised that the capital gain or capital loss generated by the sale of the B property is to be disregarded under section 118-12 of the ITAA 1997. The property was purchased under the names of C who have been holding it on behalf of the Society. C request confirmation that if the property is sold, the capital gain or capital loss will be disregarded as it has solely been used for producing exempt income since it was purchased and they are also exempt from the income tax on the capital gain or capital loss generated by the property. Assumption The property continues to be used solely to produce exempt income until it is disposed of.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 11-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 50-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 102-20 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 104-10(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 106-50 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 108-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 118-12

Reasons for decision: Summary: A trust relationship exists between the legal owners of the property, the two members and the Society, the beneficial owner of the property. The Society is therefore liable for any Capital Gains Tax (CGT) liability in respect of the disposal of the property. The Society has however used the property to produce its income which is exempt income. Therefore, section 118-12 of the ITAA 1997 operates so that any capital gain or loss made in respect of the disposal of the property is exempt. As the two members are not the beneficial owners of the property, section 118-12 does not apply to them and they are not subject to capital gains tax when the property is sold. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: A capital gain or loss can only result if a CGT event happens (section 102-20 of the ITAA 1997). The gain or loss may however be affected by an exemption. CGT event A1 happens if a taxpayer disposes of a CGT asset (subsection 104-10(1) of the ITAA 1997). A ‘CGT asset’ is defined in section 108-5 of the ITAA 1997 and includes any kind of property. When considering the disposal of property and any liability in respect of CGT, the most important element in the application of the CGT provisions is ownership. Therefore, any liability in respect of CGT will depend upon the ownership of the asset. | Detailed Reasoning - Ownership for the purposes of CGT: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, where the asset is property, the property is considered to be owned by the people or entity registered on the title. It is however possible for legal ownership of an asset to differ from beneficial ownership of an asset. Where beneficial ownership and legal ownership of an asset are not the same, there must be evidence that the legal owner holds the asset on trust for the beneficial owner. Section 106-50 of the ITAA 1997 provides that where a beneficiary is absolutely entitled to an asset held by a trustee any ‘act done by the trustee in relation to the asset’ is treated as if it had been an act of the person absolutely entitled. As a result if the act triggers a CGT event, then the beneficiary, and not the trustee, is liable for any capital gain or loss that arises in relation to the asset. A beneficiary is absolutely entitled to an asset of a trust as against the trustee for the purposes of section 106-50 of the ITAA 1997 if the beneficiary is: ● absolutely entitled in equity to the asset and thus has a vested, indefeasible and absolute interest in the asset; and ● able to direct the trustee how to deal with the asset. It therefore follows that where the legal and beneficial ownership of an asset are not the same, in order to establish who will be liable for any CGT consequences on the disposal of the asset, it is necessary to determine if the beneficial owner is absolutely entitled to the property as against the registered legal owners. | Detailed Reasoning - Absolute entitlement to a CGT asset: The phrase 'absolutely entitled to a CGT asset as against the trustee’ is not defined in the tax legislation. However, the decision in Saunders v. Vautier (1841) 4 BEAV 155, 49 ER 282 established the concept of absolute entitlement and Taxation Ruling TR 2004/D25 Income tax: capital gains: meaning of the words 'absolutely entitled to a CGT asset as against the trustee of a trust' as used in Parts 3-1 and 3-3 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (TR 2004/D25) provides guidelines on the application of this concept in the context of the CGT provisions. The core principle underpinning the concept of absolute entitlement is the ability of a beneficiary, who has a vested and indefeasible interest in the entire trust asset, to call for the asset to be transferred to them or to be transferred at their direction (paragraph 10 of TR 2004/D25). A vested interest is one that will take effect in possession at some time and is not contingent upon an event that may or may not happen. A beneficiary's interest is vested in possession if they have the right to immediate possession or enjoyment of the asset (paragraph 74 of TR 2004/D25). That is, there are no legal impediments to the beneficiary's right. It is also necessary that the interest of a beneficiary to a CGT asset cannot be defeated by the actions of any person or the occurrence of any subsequent event. Paragraph 11 of TR 2004/D25 explains that if there is some basis upon which a trustee can legitimately resist the beneficiary's call for an asset, then the beneficiary will not be absolutely entitled as against the trustee to the asset. The test of absolute entitlement is therefore based on whether the beneficiary has a vested and indefeasible interest in the property and is able to call for that property to be transferred. Anything that allows the registered legal owners to resist the demand for the property will mean the beneficiary does not have an absolute entitlement to that asset. | Detailed Reasoning - Exempt capital gains or losses: Although an amount is included in assessable income under a provision of the ITAA it may be made exempt income or non-assessable non-exempt income under another provision. Section 118-12 of the ITAA 1997 exempts capital gains or losses from CGT assets used solely to produce exempt income or non-assessable non-exempt income. Exempt income can be divided into two main classes: ● ordinary or statutory income of entities that are exempt no matter what kind of ordinary or statutory income they have, and ● ordinary or statutory income of a kind that is exempt. Section 11-5 of the ITAA 1997 lists entities that are exempt no matter what kind of ordinary or statutory income they have. A ‘registered charity’ which is endorsed as exempt from income tax by the Commissioner of Taxation (item 1.1 of section 50-5 of the ITAA 1997) is listed as an exempt entity. Therefore an endorsed registered charity will not have a CGT liability in respect of disposals of its assets. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: CGT event A1 will happen to the property when it is disposed of. Any liability in respect of capital gains or losses on the disposal of the property depends upon the ownership of the property. C are the legal owners of the property, however the property was acquired for the Foundation’s branch office, and then the incorporated Society, as its permanent office for conducting its charitable activities. There is no formal trust relationship established between the legal owners, C, and the Society. The arrangement under which the parties acquired and serviced the property is not documented, nor is there a trust instrument which sets out the terms and parameters governing the relationship. The arrangement was however documented in the financial statements of the Society which state that the Society was at ‘all times entitled to the benefits of the property together with all the earnings, profits, gains accrued or to accrue in respect of the property’. Whilst there is no formal trust instrument, the arrangement exhibits the essential characteristics of a trust as follows: ● The registered title owners, the two members, hold a legal interest in the property. ● The property is capable of being held on trust. ● The Society is the sole beneficiary of the property, a claim supported by the legal owners, C, who declare that the intention in acquiring the property was for the property to be beneficially owned by the Society at all times and not the legal owners themselves. ● At the time of acquisition of the property the Society (formerly the branch office) could not obtain a loan from the bank. ● The legal owners have a personal obligation to deal with the property for the benefit of the Society. Accordingly, whilst a formal trust instrument does not exist, we acknowledge that a trust relationship exists between the legal owners of the property, C, and the Society, the beneficial owner of the property. Given that a trust relationship exists in respect of the property it is necessary to determine if the Society as the beneficial owner is absolutely entitled to the property as against C, the legal owners of the property. The Foundation and its branch office did not have sufficient financial capacity to obtain a bank loan by which to purchase the property. This prompted it to enter an arrangement with C whereby they would obtain finance for the purchase of the property on behalf of the Foundation and the legal proprietary interest in the property would be registered in their names. The property however, would be held on trust by C exclusively for the benefit of the Foundation to conduct its charitable activities in B through the branch office, and then by the Society upon the incorporation of the branch office. The property has always been used for this purpose. Whilst C are the mortgagors, the mortgage payments have been paid by the branch office and the Society. The deposit for the acquisition of the property was funded by the Foundation and from donations made to the branch office. Mortgage payments have never been paid by any other person or entity besides the Foundation, its branch office or the Society. In addition, all income and expenses in relation to the property have been accounted for by the Society since it was incorporated. In Dyer v. Dyer (1788) 30 ER 42 it was held that, in general, when a person paid the purchase price of a property and caused the property to be registered in the name of some other person, it was presumed that the payer intended that the registered owner held the property in trust for them. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. In this case no such rebuttal is apparent on the facts. Paragraph 78 of TR 2004/D25 points out that, given the absence of any other beneficiaries, a sole beneficiary would have a beneficial interest in the entire asset. This totality of beneficial interest means a sole beneficiary satisfies the requirement that their interest in the asset be vested in possession and indefeasible if the beneficiary has the ability to terminate the trust by demanding the asset be transferred to them or to transfer it at their direction in circumstances where that entitlement cannot be defeated. This would be the case if there are no legal impediments to the beneficiary in obtaining immediate possession and enjoyment of the asset. The Society has a beneficial interest in the entire property and is absolutely entitled to the property. The Society’s interest is vested and indefeasible in that there are no legal impediments to its ability to demand that C, as the property’s legal owners and as trustees, transfer the property to it or to direct them how to otherwise deal with the property. There is no indication of anything that would allow them to resist the Society’s demand for such a transfer, nor that they would consider taking any step to resist the demand. Consequently, when the property is disposed of, section 106-50 of the ITAA 1997 will apply to treat any act done by C, as the legal owners and as the trustees of the property, as if it had been an act of the Society. As a result, when the property is disposed of and CGT event A1 happens, the Society will be subject to any CGT liability in respect of the disposal of the property. Whilst a capital gain or capital loss may arise in respect of the property’s disposal, the Society is endorsed by the Commissioner as a registered charity. As a result, all of the income of the Society is exempt income. Section 118-12 of the ITAA 1997 exempts capital gains or losses from CGT assets used solely to produce exempt income. Given that the Society has used the property to produce its income which is exempt income it will not have a liability in respect of any gains or losses made on the disposal of its assets. Therefore, any capital gain or loss made in respect of the disposal of the property will be exempt. As we have determined that C are not the beneficial owners of the property, then they do not need to consider capital gains tax when the property is sold. It is the Society as the beneficial owner of the property that needs to consider capital gains tax when the property is sold but section 118-12 of the ITAA 1997 comes into operation for it to disregard any capital gain or capital loss made.