Private ruling: CGT compulsorily acquired asset roll-over, extension of time
Date of advice: 1 June 2021
Published: August 2021
Ruling period: Income year ending 30 June XXXX | Income year ending 30 June XXXX | Income year ending 30 June XXXX
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 20XX

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise his discretion under paragraph 124 - 75(3)(b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) to allow an extension of time until 30 June XXXX for you to acquire a replacement asset? | A1: Yes Subsection 124-75(3)(b) of the ITAA 1997 required you to incur expenditure in acquiring a replacement CGT asset by 30 June 20YY 'or within such further time as the Commissioner allows in special circumstances' Based on the facts and circumstances of your case, and the guidance provided in Taxation Determination TD 2000/40 Income tax: capital gains: what are 'special circumstances' for the purposes of subsection 124-75(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997? , the Commissioner will exercise his discretion to allow an extension of time until 30 June XXXX.

Relevant facts and circumstances: On DDMMYY, you acquired Land for $AA. On DDMMYY, you received a Notice of Intention to Acquire (NOIA) the Land. The Land was compulsorily acquired by the state government on DDMMYY. On DDMMYY, you received a Notice of Acquisition which included the offer of compensation amount of $BB, inclusive of the estimated market value of the Land to be $CC. You filed a Notice of Referral of a Disputed Claim to the Supreme Court in dispute of the amount. While you have received some of the compensation, the outstanding amount will not be decided until the dispute is settled after the year ended 30 June 20XX has concluded. You have always intended to acquire a replacement asset(s) to fully offset the notional gain made on the compulsory acquisition. You have acquired a property which satisfies the replacement asset requirements, but its cost does not fully absorb the full amount of then notional gain made on the compulsory acquisition. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant delays on the functionality and timeliness of the court system. Mediation was delayed from with the Supreme Court trial for the matter now scheduled to commence later this year and has been allocated 10 days to be heard. This delay in proceedings was caused by circumstances outside of your control. The pandemic also limited your ability to search for a suitable replacement property. During local extended restrictions real estate activities effectively ceased.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 104-10 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 124-70 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 124-75


This ruling applies for the following periods: