Private ruling: Non-commercial losses
Published: June 2014
Ruling period: Year ending 30 June 2013
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2012

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 business activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2012-13 financial year? | A1: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You conduct a business that has produced significant profits and losses for several years. During the 2012-13 financial year you received a bonus from your employer that increased your adjusted taxable income in excess of $250,000. Also your business market was volatile.

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 paragraph 35-55(1)(a) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 35-10(2E)

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 the discretion. In your situation, you do not satisfy the income requirement and you do not come under any of the exceptions. The relevant discretion contained in paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 may be exercised for the financial year in question where the Commissioner is satisfied that: • an event has occurred that would be considered special circumstances for your business activity and this event was outside your control; and • the impact of these special circumstances prevented your business activity from making a tax profit in the year you are seeking the discretion. 'Special circumstances' are those circumstances which are sufficiently different to distinguish them from the circumstances that occur in the normal course of conducting a business activity, including drought, flood, bushfire or some other natural disaster. No exhaustive definition of 'special circumstances' is given in the legislation. The question of what constitutes 'special circumstances' has been judicially considered on many occasions. In the Federal Court case of Community Services Health, Minister for v. Chee Keong Thoo (1988) 8 AAR 245; (1988) 78 ALR 307, Burchett J considered 'special circumstances' in the context of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and made the following observation: 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… Later, in the Federal Court Case of Secretary, Department of Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs v. Barrett and Another (1998) 82 FCR 524 'special' was considered in the context of 'special weather conditions' for the purposes of the Austudy Regulations 1990. Tamberlin J observed 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 then quoted the following passage with approval from the AAT case of Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 AAR 362; (1984) 6 ALD 1: 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 of the ITAA 1997, special circumstances are ordinarily those affecting the business activity such that it would be unreasonable for the loss deferral rule to apply. TR 2007/6 states at paragraph 47: …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. In your case you received a one off payment and your business market was volatile in the 2012-13 financial year. Receiving this one off payment did not cause your business activity to make a loss. Rather it caused you to fail the income requirement under subsection 35-10(2E) of the ITAA 1997. The volatility of your business market in 2012-13 financial year is considered to be ordinary fluctuations that might reasonably be predicted and would not be considered to be special circumstances. Therefore, the Commissioner will not exercise the discretion under paragraph 35-55(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 for the 2012-13 financial year on the basis that that it is not reasonable to conclude that the losses made in the 2012-13 financial year were caused by special circumstances.