Private ruling: Share trading
Published: September 2012
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2007 | Year ended 30 June 2008 | Year ended 30 June 2009 | Year ended 30 June 2010 | Year ended 30 June 2011
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2006

Ruling: Question and answer | Were you carrying on a business as a share trader? | No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You first purchased shares a number of years ago as an investor. You started to become more involved in trading and selling shares a few years later. You spent a few hours each week buying and selling shares. You worked full-time while share trading. You did not have a written business plan. You have maintained a detailed excel spread sheet of all of your transactions along with keeping all buy and sell contract notes. You undertook regular reading of the financial review along with reading of investment books and viewing of money and trading web sites to assist you with your trading decisions. You also purchased a number of share related texts.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 6-5. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 995-1. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 35-10. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 35-30.

Reasons for decision: Summary: 'Business' is defined in section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) as 'any profession, trade, employment, vocation or calling, but does not include occupation as an employee'. Whether a share trading activity is carried on as a business is a question of fact. Case law has determined certain factors as being relevant in making this decision and concluded that no one factor is determinative, it is the overall impression gained. The following case law supports the concept of impression gained about the distinction between a share market investor/speculator and someone who is carrying on a business of share trading. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Radnor Pty Ltd (1991) 22 ATR 344; 91 ATC 4689, (Radnor) Hill J stated 'Ultimately, the question of whether the respondent was carrying on a business of dealing in shares is a question of fact and degree, a question of impression.' And more recently re-iterated in Smith v Federal Court of Taxation 2010 ATC 10-146; [2010] AATA 576 (Smith) Ettinger J stated at paragraph 12 ' by way of general guidance, I am mindful of the frequently cited words from Martin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1953) 90 CLR 470: The test is both subjective and objective: it is made by regarding the nature and extent of the activities under review, as well as the purpose of the individual engaging in them, and … the determination is eventually based on the large or general impression gained. The factors that are considered relevant in determining whether an activity is carried on as a business have been addressed in a number of court cases. In Case X86 90 ATC 621; AAT Case 6297 (1990) 21 ATR 3747 (Case X86), and more recently in Shields v DFC of T (Cth) 99 ATC 2037; (1999) 41 ATR 1042 ( Shields v DFC of T (Cth )) and Smith the following were stated as factors to be considered: · the nature of the activities and whether they have the purpose of profit-making; · the complexity and magnitude of the undertaking; · an intention to engage in trade regularly, routinely or systematically; · operating in a business-like manner and the degree of sophistication involved; · whether any profit or loss is regarded as arising from a discernible pattern of trading; · the volume of the taxpayer's operation and the amount of capital employed; · and more particularly in respect of share traders: · repetition and regularity in the buying and selling of shares; · turnover; · whether the taxpayer is operating to a plan, setting budgets and targets, keeping records; · maintenance of an office; · accounting for the share transactions on a gross receipts basis; and · whether the taxpayer is engaged in another full time occupation. Three cases provide examples of the application of these factors by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). In Case W8 89 ATC 171; (1988) 20 ATR 3182 a trainee accountant purchased 20 parcels of shares between April 1986 and February 1987. All the shares were sold between September 1986 and April 1987, no share having been held for more than five months. A small loss made on four parcels was claimed as a deduction. The AAT held that the shares were purchased as trading stock during the 1987 year. As the shares were bought and sold repeatedly with a view to making a profit and all shares were sold within a year of acquisition, the person was in the business of share trading. In contrast to that decision, Case X86 , disallowed losses on two parcels of shares sold after the 1987 stock market crash. Instead, the losses were quarantined under the capital gains provisions of the Act. It was found that there was a lack of sophisticated share trading techniques, business plan, market research in shares invested, contingency plan in falling market or large number of transactions, such that the applicant's activities did not exhibit a system of operation of a business in share trading. The applicant had only a limited contact with the share market, which he then entered for the purpose of making quick profits by generally buying and selling speculative mining shares. The applicant was not engaged in a business of share trading but rather that he was a speculator in the share market. In a recent decision handed down by the AAT on 5 August 2010, Smith , it was found that Mr Smith was not in the business of share trader during the year ended 30 June 2007 or 30 June 2008. The Tribunal found that the applicant could not demonstrate to its satisfaction that the nature of his activities had the purpose of profit making because: · he held his shares for periods longer than a share trader generally would; · took DRP's and dividends; · his activities did not demonstrate, to the Tribunal's satisfaction, repetition and regularity in the buying and selling of shares in order to demonstrate that he was in business; · the applicant did not maintain a separate office; · the applicant worked fulltime in a very responsible position at Babcock & Brown. The AAT Member qualified this by stating " although I do not put much weight on that, I was concerned that he was unable to indicate what kind of time he spent on buying and selling shares". · he did not keep any separate accounting but relied on third party systems (BT and the WBC platform). The AAT concluded: The evidence points strongly to, and my overall impression is, that Mr Smith was not conducting a business either in 2007, or in 2008, that he was not in business, and not in the business of share trading. I was satisfied that he had more disposable income than previously, and invested it in shares as an investor might. I have preferred the submissions of the Respondent in that regard. To summarize, it was found that Mr Smith invested in shares and other securities, albeit at increased amount of capital investment because he had the funds available; and that all the transactions were on capital account. In your case you held a full-time job for the period you were trading shares. You spent a few hours per week trading and selling shares. You made on average 1 transaction per week. You did not have a business plan. You checked the market from your home computer prior to leaving for work of a morning and from your work computer at times. You only made a small number of trades in each year. You relied on regular reading of the financial review and other publications to assist you with your transaction decisions. You did not have a written business plan. Your share buying and selling activity was not indicative of you being in the business of share trading.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.