Private ruling: Land subdivision
Date of advice: 28 March 2025
Published: 19 May 2025
Date scheme commenced: XX June 20XX.

Ruling: Q1: Is any portion of the sale proceeds included in your assessable income under section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A1: No. | Q2: Will your supply of the vacant lot be a taxable supply pursuant to section 9-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act)? | A2: No. This private ruling applies for the following period: Year ending XX June 20XX. The scheme commenced on: XX June 20XX.

Relevant facts and circumstances: In 20XX, as joint tenants, you purchased a property for $XX. Prior to purchase of the Property, you were residing at property A until you sold it in 20XX for $XX. After the sale of the property A, you secured a temporary property at where you resided until 20XX when you moved into the Property. Settlement occurred in 20XX. When purchased the Property comprised of Xm 2 of land and contained a X-bedroom, X-bathroom residence. You, your spouse, and your children moved into the Property in 20XX and it has since been used as your principal place of residence. Since you purchased the Property, you have renovated existing bathrooms and the kitchen and added further bedrooms and bathrooms to the original residence. These alterations to the existing dwelling were undertaken as part of development application (DA) approvals. The Property has not been rented since you obtained ownership. Following your neighbour's subdivision of their property you decided to investigate the possibility of subdividing your property and selling the subdivided lot. The kitchen of the existing Property was renovated in 20XX, costing approximately $XX. This was funded by your salary. Two of the existing bathrooms of the Property were renovated in 20XX costing approximately $XX. This was funded by your increasing the mortgage on the Property by refinancing the home loan and changing lenders. In 20XX, you added additional bedrooms to the Property so that your children could have bedrooms, costing approximately $XX. This was funded through personal savings and credit cards once the savings was exhausted. In 20XX you submitted a DA to the Council to subdivide your Property into X lots and including the construction of a driveway and associated works. The cost of the subdivision DA was approximately $XX. The cost of the proposed dwelling DA for the vacant lot was approximately $XX. The DA was approved in 20XX. The front lot contains your existing principal place of residence, and the rear lot consists of a vacant lot of approximately XXm 2. In November 20XX you subsequently submitted a further DA to construct a dwelling including swimming pool on the vacant lot created under. This was done on the recommendation of your real estate agent, who informed you that vacant land in the area had little chance of sale unless accompanied by approved plans that showed that the land could be built on. You did not, at any point, intend to actually construct the dwelling on the vacant lot prior to selling it. In 20XX you obtained Deferred Commencement Consent which requires you to satisfy certain conditions within 2 years of the issue date of the Deferred Commencement Consent for the consent for the DA to become operative. Requirements of the deferred commencement conditions include the issue of the subdivision certificate for the creation of the rear lot, the registration of the rear lot with the Land Registry Services, subsequent submission of a completed 'Deferred Commencement Document Review Form' with supporting documentation and the submission of a request for Operational Consent. The deferred commencement consent is due to lapse after the 2 years circa 20XX. The Compliance Certificate of completion of subdivision activities under the DA was issued in 20XX and the application for the Subdivision Certificate was submitted on 20XX. The Title for the subdivided vacant lot was issued on 20XX. The works involved in the subdivision of the Property into 2 lots include the construction of a driveway and connections to stormwater and utility services. You spent approximately $XX on these activities to prepare the land for subdivision. Your personal involvement in the subdivision activities was to oversee the subcontractors performing the work. The preparation for subdivision has been financed by you through personal savings and a redundancy payment. You subsequently engaged the services of real estate agents to market and sell the vacant lot. You will not construct the dwelling or any other building on the vacant lot prior to its sale. A Notice of Valuation was issued to you in 20XX. The valuation of the land as at that date was $XX. You have not previously been involved in property subdivision/development. To ensure the 'Deferred Commencement Consent' did not lapse prior to selling the vacant lot, you applied for 'Operational Consent'. Settlement for the sale of the subdivided lot occurred in December 20XX. The sale price was $XX.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 6-5 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 9-5 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 9-20 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 9-40 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Division 38 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 Division 40 | A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 section 195-1

Reasons for decision: Summary: Having regard to your circumstances and the factors outlined in Taxation Ruling TR 92/3 Income Tax: whether profits on isolated transactions are income we determine that the sale of the subdivided does not have the characteristics of an isolated profit-making transaction. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: In this detailed reasoning pertaining to question 1, • unless otherwise stated, all legislative references are to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Profits or gains in the ordinary course of business: Taxation Ruling TR 92/3 Income tax: whether profits on isolated transactions are income discusses profits on isolated transactions and the application of the principles outlined in the decision of the Full High Court of Australia in FCT v. Myer Emporium Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 199; 87 ATC 4363; (1987) 18 ATR 693. The following matters bear relevance when considering if isolated transaction amounts to a business operation or commercial operation: • 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 If a taxpayer is not carrying on a business makes a profit, that profit is income if: • The intention or purpose of the taxpayer in entering into the profit-making transaction or operation was to make a profit or gain; and • The transaction or operation was entered into, and the profit was made, in carrying out a business operation or commercial transaction. Profits made from a transaction or operation may still be considered income, even if the taxpayer is not involved in a business operation by its ordinary definition. In Myer , the taxpayer was carrying on a large business at the time it entered into the transactions and, in Whitfords Beach, the taxpayer company embarked on a substantial business venture. Through the reasoning in the judgments of these cases, it is suggested that profits made by taxpayers who enter into isolated transactions, with a profit making purpose, can be assessable income. In Myer , at 163 CLR 213; 87 ATC 4369; 18 ATR 699-700, the Full High Court drew a distinction between the nature of profits from isolated transactions through an intention of profit-making: It is one thing if the decision to sell an asset is taken after its acquisition, there having been no intention or purpose at the time of acquisition of acquiring for the purpose of profit-making by sale. Then, if the asset be not a revenue asset on other grounds, the profit made is capital because it proceeds from a mere realisation. But it is quite another thing if the decision to sell is taken by way of implementation of an intention or purpose, existing at the time of acquisition, of profit-making by sale, at least in the context of carrying on a business or carrying out a business operation or commercial transaction. | Detailed Reasoning - Profits or gains in isolated transactions: Profits from an isolated transaction will be ordinary income where: • the intention or purpose of a taxpayer in entering into the transaction was to make a profit or gain and • the transaction was entered into, and the profit was made, in the course of carrying on a business operation or commercial transaction. TR 92/3 states that whether a profit from an isolated transaction is income according to the ordinary concepts and usages of mankind depends on the circumstances of the case. Profits on the sale of land can therefore be income according to ordinary concepts, within section 6-5, if the taxpayer's development activities have become a separate business operation or commercial transaction, or an isolated profit-making venture. | Detailed Reasoning - Mere realisation: The courts have often said that a profit on the mere realisation of an investment is not income, even if the taxpayer goes about the realisation in an enterprising way. The expression 'mere realisation' is used to contradistinguish a business operation or a commercial transaction carrying out a profit-making scheme ( Myer at 163 CLR 213; 87 ATC 4368-4369; 18 ATR 699-700). If a transaction satisfies the elements set out in paragraph 35 it is generally not a mere realisation of an investment. In Whitfords Beach , Mason J noted the importance and scope of the word 'mere'. It was held that ... it is enough to answer the statutory description that there was a profit-making undertaking or scheme which exhibited the characteristics of a business deal, even though it did not amount to the carrying on of a business ... . | Detailed Reasoning - Intention or purpose: TR 92/3 outlines that the relevant intention or purpose of the taxpayer, of making a profit or gain, is not the subjective intention or purpose of the taxpayer. Rather, it is the taxpayer's intention or purpose discerned from an objective consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated in Myer : ...it may be said that if the circumstances are such as to give rise to the inference that the taxpayer's intention or purpose in entering into the transaction was to make a profit or gain, the profit or gain will be income... For example, as stated at paragraph 42 of TR 92/3, if a taxpayer acquires an asset with the intention of using it for personal enjoyment but later decides to venture or commit the asset either: • as the capital of a business; or • into a profit-making undertaking or scheme with the characteristics of a business operation or commercial transaction, the activity of the taxpayer constitutes the carrying on of a business or a business operation or commercial transaction carrying out a profit-making scheme. Generally, a transaction or operation has the character of a business operation or commercial transaction if the transaction or operation would constitute the carrying on of a business but for it not occurring as part of repetitious or recurring transactions or operations. The following factors are taking into consideration when determining whether an isolated transaction amounts to a business operation or commercial transaction: (a) the nature of the entity undertaking the operation or transaction ( Ruhamah Property Co. Ltd. v. F C of T (1928) 41 CLR 148 at 154; Hobart Bridge Co. Ltd. v. FC of T (1951) 82 CLR 372 at 383; FC of T v. Radnor Pty Ltd 91 ATC 4689; 22 ATR 344). For example, if the taxpayer is a corporation with substantial assets rather than an individual, that may be an indication that the operation or transaction was commercial in nature. However, if the taxpayer acts in the capacity of trustee of a family trust, the inference that the transaction was commercial or business in nature may not be drawn so readily; (b) the nature and scale of other activities undertaken by the taxpayer ( Western Gold Mines N.L. v. C. of T. (W.A.) (1938) 59 CLR 729 at 740); (c) the amount of money involved in the operation or transaction and the magnitude of the profit sought or obtained; (d) the nature, scale and complexity of the operation or transaction; (e) the manner in which the operation or transaction was entered into or carried out. This factor would include whether professional agents and advisers were used and whether the operation or transaction took place in a public market; (f) the nature of any connection between the relevant taxpayer and any other party to the operation or transaction. For example, the relationship between the parties may suggest that the operation or transaction was essentially a family dealing and not business or commercial in nature; (g) if the transaction involves the acquisition and disposal of property, the nature of that property ( Edwards v. Bairstow; Hobart Bridge 82 CLR at 383). For example, if the property has no use other than as the subject of trade, the conclusion that the property was acquired for the purpose of trade and, therefore, that the transaction was commercial in nature, would be readily drawn; and (h) the timing of the transaction or the various steps in the transaction ( Ruhamah Property 41 CLR at 154). For example, if the relevant transaction consists of the acquisition and disposal of property, the holding of the property for many years may indicate that the transaction was not business or commercial in nature. In McCarthy v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] AATA 1511 (McCarthy), the applicant and her husband purchased a residential property. Shortly after, they lodged an application for subdivision. This plan was approved and the dwelling on the property was demolished after the tenant had vacated it. At the time of purchase of the property, there was a long-term tenant in residence. The two lots resulting from the subdivision were sold and the applicant applied for a private ruling to determine whether the profits derived were assessable income under section 6-5. The Commissioner found that the profits were assessable income under section 6-5, and the applicant objected to the private ruling decision. In McCarthy , the applicant argued that the transaction could not be considered a business operation or commercial transaction, as it did not satisfy any of the commercial transaction indicators set out in paragraph 49 of TR 92/3. As stated at paragraph 48 of McCarthy: The Tribunal makes two observations about the above argument. The first is that '... the applicable test is ... that the transaction must be the sort of thing a businessperson or person in trade does' (Steward J's proposition from Greig v Commissioner of Taxation at [242](2020) 275 FCR 445.The test is not whether the transaction was carried out in an efficient or business-like manner, the test is whether the transaction is of the sort that a person in business would undertake. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cooling (1990) FCA 297 (Cooling) it was held that it is not necessary that the intention or purpose of profit-making by sale be the sole or dominant purpose of the taxpayer entering into the profit-making scheme, but that it remains not an insignificant aspect of the purpose. With regards to McCarthy and Cooling , it follows that the purpose of the profit-making scheme need not be evident at the time of acquisition of the asset, merely that a profit-making opportunity was present at the commencement of the transaction. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: You are not in the business of property development. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the sale of the subdivided lot is considered an isolated profit-making transaction. As stated above, the intention or purpose behind the acquisition of the property must be looked at objectively and is not limited to the intention at the time of purchase. Although there may have been consider your intention or purpose at the time of purchase of the property was to establish your personal residence. After some time, you recognised the potential of subdividing your block after observing your neighbours successfully subdivide and sell theirs. The activity is on a small scale in comparison to that of the ordinary trade. Though a profit was made, from an objective consideration of the facts and circumstances we consider that the activity you have undertaken to subdivide the Lot do not have the characteristics of an isolated commercial transaction with a view to profit. In this case, we consider your activities amount to the mere realisation of the asset. | Detailed Reasoning - Additional information: Section 112-25 sets out what happens when an original asset is either: • split into two or more new assets, or • the original asset changes in whole or in part into a new asset of a different nature. If you are the beneficial owner of the original asset and the new asset, then the cost base of the new asset must be worked out. Taxation Determination 97/3 ' Income tax: capital gains: if a parcel of land acquired after 19 September 1985 is subdivided into lots ('blocks'), do Parts 3-1 and 3-3 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 treat a disposal of a block of the subdivided land as the disposal of part of an asset (the original land parcel) or the disposal of an asset in its own right (the subdivided block)?'a ddresses the cost base and reduced cost base of a subdivided block. Visit quick code 66042 Subdividing and Combining Land at ato.gov.au for further information. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: In this detailed reasoning pertaining to question 2, • unless otherwise stated, all legislative references are to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act) • all legislative terms of the GST Act marked with an asterisk are defined in section 195-1 of the GST Act. • all reference materials, published by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), that are referred to are available on the ATO website ato.gov.au Goods and services tax (GST) is payable on taxable supplies. Section 9-5 states that you make a taxable supply if: (a) you make the supply for *consideration; and (b) the supply is made in the course or furtherance of an *enterprise that you *carry on; and (c) the supply is *connected with the indirect tax zone; and (d) you are *registered, or *required to be registered. However, the supply is not a taxable supply to the extent that it is GST-free or input taxed. For the sale of the property to be a taxable supply, all the requirements in section 9-5 must be satisfied. The circumstances in which a supply is GST-free or input taxed are found in Divisions 38 and 40 respectively. In your case, there are no provisions in the GST Act under which your sale of vacant lot would be a GST-free or input taxed supply. You will be supplying the vacant lot for consideration. The supply will be connected with the indirect tax zone as the land is located in Australia. However, you are not registered for GST. The primary issue to be resolved is whether the supply of the vacant lotwill be made in the course or furtherance of an enterprise that you carry on (paragraph 9-5(b)). If so, a further issue to be considered is whether you are required to be registered for GST. | Detailed Reasoning - Enterprise: Subsection 9-20(1) provides, amongst other things, that an enterprise is an activity, or series of activities, done: (a) in the form of a business; or (b) in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT 2006/1 The New Tax System: the meaning of entity carrying on an enterprise for the purposes of entitlement to an Australian Business Number (MT 2006/1) provides guidelines on the meaning of carrying on an enterprise. Paragraph 1 of Goods and Services Tax Determination GSTD 2006/6 Goods and services tax: does MT 2006/1 have equal application to the meaning of 'entity' and 'enterprise' for the purposes of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999? provides that the guidelines in MT 2006/1 are considered to apply equally to the term 'enterprise' as used in the GST Act and can be relied upon for GST purposes. Paragraphs 177 to 179 of MT 2006/1 discuss the main indicators of carrying on a business, and state: Indicators of a business 177. To determine whether an activity, or series of activities, amounts to a business, the activity needs to be considered against the indicators of a business established by case law. 178. TR 97/11 discusses the main indicators of carrying on a business. Based on that discussion some indicators are: • a significant commercial activity; • a purpose and intention of the taxpayer to engage in commercial activity; • an intention to make a profit from the activity; • the activity is or will be profitable; • the recurrent or regular nature of the activity; • the activity is carried on in a similar manner to that of other businesses in the same or similar trade; • activity is systematic, organised and carried on in a businesslike manner and records are kept; • the activities are of a reasonable size and scale; • a business plan exists; • commercial sales of product; and • the entity has relevant knowledge or skill. 179. There is no single test to determine whether a business is being carried on. Paragraph 12 of TR 97/11 states that 'whilst each case might turn on its own particular facts, the determination of the question is generally the result of a process of weighing all the relevant indicators'. TR 97/11 can be referred to for a fuller discussion on whether a particular activity constitutes the carrying on of a business. Given the facts of this case, we consider that the activities resulting in the subdivision, marketing and sale of the vacant lot do not reflect the indicators of a 'business' as listed above. The indicators set out in paragraph 178 of MT 2006/1 are not present to a sufficient degree to warrant the conclusion that you are carrying on an enterprise in the form of a business. We now consider whether your activities will be in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (paragraph 9-20(1)(b)). | Detailed Reasoning - In the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade: Paragraph 244 of MT 2006/1 explains that an adventure or concern in the nature of trade includes a commercial activity that does not amount to a business, but which has the characteristics of a business deal. Such transactions are of a revenue nature. However, the sale of the family home, car and other private assets are not, in the absence of other factors, adventures or concerns in the nature of trade. Paragraph 245 of MT 2006/1 refers to 'the badges of trade' which provides a 'common sense guidance' in reaching a conclusion on whether a transaction has the characteristics of a business deal and whether an asset is held as a trading/revenue asset or a capital/investment asset held for either investment or personal enjoyment. While an activity such as the selling of an asset may not of itself amount to an enterprise, account should be taken of the other activities leading up to the sale to determine if an enterprise is carried on. The Commissioner's view on the badges of trade in MT 2006/1 includes: The subject matter of realisation 247. This badge of trade considers the form and the quantity of property acquired. If the property provides either an income or personal enjoyment to the owner it is more likely to be an investment than a trading asset. The length of period of ownership 249. A trading asset is generally dealt with or traded within a short time after acquisition. The frequency or number of similar transactions 251. The greater the frequency of similar transactions the greater the likelihood of trade. Supplementary work on or in connection with the property realised 252. Improving property beyond preparing an asset for sale, to bring it into a more marketable condition and gain a better price suggests an element of trade. The circumstances that were responsible for the realisation 253. Trade involves operations of a commercial character. As assets can be sold for reasons other than trade, the circumstances behind the sale need to be considered. For example, a quick resale may have occurred as a result of sudden financial difficulties. Motive 254. If the activities on an objective assessment have the characteristics of trade, the person's motive is not relevant. It is relevant in those cases where the evidence is not conclusive. An intention to resell at the time of acquisition may be an indicator of the resale being an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. 255. Motive is also important in cases if there is a change in character of the asset. For example, a trading asset becoming an investment asset when the person decides to keep the asset, either for income producing purposes or personal enjoyment Paragraph 258 to 261 of MT 2006/1 further considers the character of an asset and distinguishes between trade/revenue assets and capital/investment assets as follows: Trade v. investment assets 258. United Kingdom cases categorise assets as either trading assets or investment assets. Assets purchased with the intention of holding them for a reasonable period of time, to be held as income producing assets or to be held for the pleasure or enjoyment of the person, are more likely not to be purchased for trading purposes. 259. Examples of investment assets are rental properties, business plant and machinery, the family home, family cars and other private assets. The mere disposal of investment assets does not amount to trade. 260. Assets can change their character but cannot have a dual character at the same time. 261. Investment assets such as business plant and machinery are used by entities in carrying on a business. The purchase and disposal of those types of assets is ordinarily considered not to be an adventure or concern in the nature of trade for UK income tax purposes. Paragraph 262 of MT 2006/1 acknowledges that the question of whether an entity is carrying on an enterprise often arises where there are 'one-offs' or isolated real property transactions. Paragraph 263 continues, stating that the issue to be decided is whether the activities being conducted are an enterprise in that they are of a revenue nature as they are considered to be activities of carrying on a business or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (profit making undertaking or scheme) as opposed to the mere realisation of a capital asset. Paragraph 264 of MT 2006/1 discusses two seminal cases in this area: Statham & Anor v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 89 ATC 4070 ( Statham) and Casimaty v FC of T 97 ATC 5135 (Casimaty) . Paragraph 265 of MT 2006/1 extracts the key elements of both cases and provides a list of factors that can be used to assist in determining whether isolated property transactions are an adventure or concern in the nature of trade or a mere realisation of a capital asset: 265. From the Statham and Casimaty cases a list of factors can be ascertained that provide assistance in determining whether activities are a business or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (a profit-making undertaking or scheme being the Australian equivalent, see paragraphs 233 to 242 of this Ruling). If several of these factors are present it may be an indication that a business or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade is being carried on. These factors are as follows: • there is a change of purpose for which the land is held; • additional land is acquired to be added to the original parcel of land; • the parcel of land is brought into account as a business asset; • there is a coherent plan for the subdivision of land; • there is a business organisation - for example, a manager, office and letterhead; • borrowed funds financed the acquisition or subdivision; • interest on money borrowed to defray subdivisional costs was claimed as a business expense; • there is a level of development of the land beyond that necessary to secure council approval for the subdivision; and • buildings have been erected on the land. In addition to the above, paragraphs 266 and 267 of MT 2006/1 provide that there may be other relevant factors outside this list that need to be weighed up in reaching an overall conclusion and that no individual factor is determinative to the question of whether an enterprise is present: 266. In determining whether activities relating to isolated transactions are an enterprise or are the mere realisation of a capital asset, it is necessary to examine the facts and circumstances of each particular case. This may require a consideration of the factors outlined above, however there may also be other relevant factors that need to be weighed up as part of the process of reaching an overall conclusion. No single factor will be determinative rather it will be a combination of factors that will lead to a conclusion as to the character of the activities. 267. No two cases are likely to be exactly the same. For instance, while the conclusions reached in the Statham and Casimaty cases were similar, different facts and factors were considered to reach the respective conclusions. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: You subdivided your Property, which has been used for your personal enjoyment as your principal place of residence for approximately X years, to create the vacant lot comprising of Xm 2 which you intend to sell. Since it was purchased, your Property has not been used to generate any form of income. The activities undertaken to subdivide the Property to date, include the construction of a driveway, connection to stormwater and utility services which are limited to those necessary to meet the minimum council requirements for the subdivision. While on the recommendation of your real estate agent (to improve the sell-ability of the vacant lot) you submitted a DA and obtained 'Deferred Commencement Consent' to construct a dwelling including swimming pool on the vacant lot, you did not intend to actually construct the dwelling on the vacant lot prior to selling it. You did not purchase additional land to add to the original parcel and whilst you have since taken steps to obtain 'Operational Consent' to construct the dwelling and swimming pool on the vacant lot, you will not construct any buildings on the vacant lot prior to selling it. You intend to sell the vacant lot which includes the development consent. While the development consent is attached to the land, runs with the land, and will be automatically transferred to the purchaser as a natural consequence of the sale of land, we do not consider that it changes the character of the supply of vacant land nor is it, in itself, a separate supply. You personally funded the subdivision costs and kept records of your expenditure to subdivide the Property. Whilst there appears to be a coherent plan for the subdivision of the Land, your personal involvement in the development was minimal and limited to engaging the subcontracts to facilitate and conduct the subdivision works. You have not previously been involved in property subdivision/development. On balance, having considered the facts of the case against the badges of trade and other factors listed above, we consider the activities you have undertaken in subdividing the Property, marketing of the vacant lot for sale and the eventual sale of the vacant lot does not amount to an enterprise in the form of an adventure or concern in the nature of trade pursuant to paragraph 9-20(1)(b). In this case, we consider your activities amount to the mere realisation of a capital asset. Accordingly, the requirement specified in paragraph 9-5(b) will not be satisfied and your supply of the vacant lot will not meet all the requirements of section 9-5 to be a taxable supply and as such GST will not be payable.