Private ruling: Non commercial losses
Published: July 2011
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2010 | Year ended 30 June 2011 | Year ending 30 June 2012 | Year ending 30 June 2013 | Year ending 30 June 2014
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2009

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise the discretion in paragraph 35-55(1)(c) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) to allow you to include any losses from your primary production activity in your calculation of taxable income for the 2009-10 to 2013-14 financial years? | A1: 

Relevant facts and circumstances: You operate a primary production business. You have submitted independent evidence as to the commercially viable period for your industry. You expect to make a tax profit a considerable number of years in excess of this period. Your independent evidence also states that at the present time the stocking rate is too low and the debt level too high for the business to be profitable. Your income for non commercial loss purposes is in excess of $250,000.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 35-55(1)(c) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 35-10(2) | 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 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 do not come under any of the exceptions. Your business losses are therefore subject to the deferral rule unless the Commissioner exercises his discretion. The relevant discretion may be exercised for the income year in question where: · it is in the nature of your business activity that there will be a period before a tax profit can be produced · there is an objective expectation your business activity will produce a tax profit within the commercially viable period for your industry. The phrase 'objective expectation' was discussed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal case of Scott v. Commissioner of Taxation [2006] AATA 542; VS2005/31-33, where it was said: …in determining a commercially viable period, the test is primarily an objective one based on independent sources. According to the Commissioner, this approach was taken by the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Eskandari (2004) 134 FCR 569 where Stone J said, at 581-582: In some cases it may be a straight forward exercise to identify the industry in which the business activity takes place. Some industries are well-established and the basis for an ''objective expectation'' can readily be based on a comparison between the tax payer's business and other businesses within that industry, particularly where businesses or business associations within the industry produce material such as annual reports or industry papers ... Despite what Stone J said, Mr Scott contended that there were other circumstances which had to be taken into account when determining the commercially viable period expressed in the Olives Australia document. However, according to the Commissioner, this is impermissible because, as the Federal Court held in Eskandari , in most cases only objective material will be considered. It is only where, because of the nature of the industry, there is very little or no objective evidence that recourse may be had to the circumstances of the tax payer. That is not the case in the olive industry, which has been established for centuries. I agree with that submission. It seems to me that if it were permissible to take into account subjective considerations of each individual grower, there might be an almost infinitely variable period which could be described as the commercially viable period. Further, in the case of Scott , additional plantings made at a later time were not permitted to be included in the commercially viable period, as follows: The fact that a grower elects not to plant sufficient trees at the outset to ensure the business is commercially viable is a decision for that individual grower. Such a grower could not expect the Commissioner to exercise his discretion under s 35-55 in his or her favour because, to do so, would effectively render nugatory the rule dealing with losses from non-commercial business activities. The sole reliance on objective evidence and the impermissibility of subjective considerations was further emphasised in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2009 as follows: 2.30 The taxpayer is required to establish objectively that the business is commercial in nature and will become profitable in a commercially viable timeframe. Objective evidence from independent sources can include evidence from an individual or organisation experienced in the relevant industry, such as industry or regulatory bodies, tertiary institutions, industry specialists, professional associations, government agencies or other independent entities with a similar successful business activity. Evidence from independent sources can also include evidence from business advisers (such as business plans), financiers and banks. 2.34 For taxpayers that do not meet the income requirement, the Commissioner may exercise a discretion after an application by a taxpayer, where the Commissioner is satisfied that - based on evidence from independent sources - the business will produce assessable income greater than available deductions, in a timeframe that is considered commercially viable for the industry concerned. 2.35 The discretion is not intended to be available in cases where the failure to make a profit is for reasons other than the nature of the business, such as, a consequence of starting out small and needing to build up a client base, or business choices made by an individual that are not consistent with the ordinary or accepted practice in the industry concerned - such as the hours of operation, location, climate or soil conditions, or the level of debt funding. | Detailed Reasoning - Your circumstances: You have provided independent evidence as to the commercially viable period in your industry. You will take a considerable time longer than this lead time to make a tax profit. It therefore follows that the commercially viable period will have passed by the time you expect to make a tax profit. The independent evidence you provided submits that your business is currently unprofitable due to your stocking rate being too low and your debt level too high. As maintained in paragraph 2.35 of the Explanatory Memorandum the discretion is not intended to be available in cases where failure to make a profit is for reasons other than the nature of the business, such as starting out small or the level of debt funding. The fact that you had insufficient land and stock numbers at the onset for your business to be commercially viable and your current level of debt funding cannot be used as determinative factors in this private ruling. It follows that the Commissioner cannot exercise his discretion in your case. The reason your activities have continued to make a loss is peculiar to your situation and is not inherent to the nature of the business.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.