Taxation Determination TD 2009/21
Date of effect: 16 December 2009

What this ruling is about: This publication (excluding appendixes) is a public ruling for the purposes of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. A public ruling is an expression of the Commissioner's opinion about the way in which a relevant provision applies, or would apply, to entities generally or to a class of entities in relation to a particular scheme or a class of schemes. If you rely on this ruling, the Commissioner must apply the law to you in the way set out in the ruling (unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the ruling is incorrect and disadvantages you, in which case the law may be applied to you in a way that is more favourable for you - provided the Commissioner is not prevented from doing so by a time limit imposed by the law). You will be protected from having to pay any underpaid tax, penalty or interest in respect of the matters covered by this ruling if it turns out that it does not correctly state how the relevant provision applies to you. [ Note: This is a consolidated version of this document. Refer to the Legal Database (http://law.ato.gov.au) to check its currency and to view the details of all changes.] Ruling 1. No. To obtain a deduction under section 25-90 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) it is not necessary for a taxpayer to actually derive a dividend to which section 23AJ of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) applies in the same income year as that in which the cost is incurred. 2. However, there must be a sufficiently clear nexus, at the time the cost is incurred, between the relevant cost and either the production of an actual section 23AJ dividend [1] or an expected section 23AJ dividend. [2] Where a section 23AJ dividend has not actually been derived, a deduction under section 25-90 would be available for a relevant cost if there was a reasonable expectation, together with a more than theoretical potential, for such a dividend to be paid to the taxpayer incurring the cost, along with a sufficiently clear nexus at the time the cost is incurred between the incurring of that cost and that reasonable expectation. This is a question of fact that requires a careful consideration of all the objective circumstances of each particular case. 3. This Determination does not address the question of the amount of the deduction (if any) available under section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997: this is a question of fact to be decided by having regard to all the objective circumstances of each situation. Date of effect 4. This Determination applies to years of income commencing both before and after its date of issue. However, this Determination will not apply to taxpayers to the extent that it conflicts with the terms of a settlement of a dispute agreed to before the date of issue of this Determination (see paragraphs 75 and 76 of Taxation Ruling TR 2006/10). Commissioner of Taxation 16 December 2009




Appendix: 5. Section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997 provides: 6. Section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997 is a standalone deduction provision concerned with losses and outgoings that are particular types of 'costs' in relation to debt interests. [3] The words of the provision must not be read in isolation, but in context, in the widest sense of that word. Therefore it is necessary to consider the words in the textual context of the tax law, and also in the context of the law before the provision was enacted, and to discover the mischief intended to be remedied. [4] 7. In paragraph 25-90(a) of the ITAA 1997, the phrase 'in deriving' [5] creates a requirement for a specific type of nexus between the 'cost' that has been incurred in relation to the debt interest and the foreign source income covered by paragraph 25-90(b) of the ITAA 1997 (for example, section 23AJ dividends). The use of the verb form 'in deriving' suggests that the nexus is concerned with identifying costs that form part of the process of income derivation, rather than being concerned with a particular occasion of actual derivation. If deductions under section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997 were intended to be limited to income years in which the relevant foreign income was actually derived, one would have expected to see a different emphasis in the wording of the provision. 8. Such a conclusion finds additional support in the overall structure and wording of the provision. For example, section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997 does not expressly require a temporal nexus between the incurring of the cost and the actual derivation of a section 23AJ dividend. Nor does it expressly state the income year in which the deduction is available. As a general rule the tax system recognises a deduction in the year in which the expense arises or is otherwise incurred. If an alternative result is intended then the legislation will generally specify the year or years in which the deduction is recognised. All this suggests that a temporal matching to the actual receipt of income is not intended. 9. Section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997 was introduced at the same time as the broader thin capitalisation regime, and was intended to operate in the context of that regime. Prior to the enactment of these provisions the tax law imposed limitations on debt deductions incurred in funding foreign subsidiaries through the general deduction rule in section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997. That provision denied deductions for costs incurred in earning exempt foreign income. There were also provisions that quarantined certain types of deductions. All of these provisions were prone to circumvention by careful tax planning. [6] The fundamental intention of section 25-90 was that, in respect of certain categories of foreign source income, taxpayers should be able to achieve in a straight-forward manner what they could already practically achieve in a roundabout manner under the existing law. 10. Therefore on balance it is considered that section 25-90 of the ITAA 1997 does not require a form of temporal matching between expenses and specific income. 11. Specifically in relation to section 23AJ dividends, the section does not require that such a dividend actually be derived in the income year in which the cost is incurred. It is enough if, at the time the cost is incurred, there is a sufficiently clear nexus between the relevant cost and either the production of an actual section 23AJ dividend or an expected section 23AJ dividend. The existence of such a nexus is a question of fact to be decided by having regard to all the objective circumstances in each case. 12. Additionally, an expectation of a section 23AJ dividend must be reasonable and not a mere theoretical possibility; that is there must be a reasonable prospect of section 23AJ dividends. In this context it is necessary to consider whether there was an expectation and intention as well as the potential for dividends of the relevant kind to be paid to the taxpayer incurring the costs, albeit in the future. Whether such an intention and potential exists is a question of fact to be decided having regard to all the objective circumstances in each particular case. 13. While by no means exhaustive, it is considered that at a practical level all of the elements set out below would usually be present before there can be a reasonable expectation that a section 23AJ dividend will be derived in a future income year. Previously released in draft form as TD 2009/D8




Related rulings: TR 2006/10
Legislative references: ITAA 1936 23AJ ITAA 1997 8-1 ITAA 1997 25-90 ITAA 1997 25-90(a) ITAA 1997 25-90(b) TAA 1953
Case references: CIC Insurance Ltd v. Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2 (1997) 187 CLR 384
Subject references: debt deductions deductions & expenses derived incurred international tax loss or outgoing
Other references: Explanatory Memorandum to the New Business Tax System (Thin Capitalisation) Bill 2001 Pearce, DC and Geddes, RS, 2006, Statutory interpretation in Australian, 6th edn, Butterworths, Australia