Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
Tags:
  1. Some people advocate using a LOC or other sources of borrowed money to pay property expenses other than interest (which may be subject of a more specific view by the ATO).

    I came across a ATO communication between the ATO and a tax adviser at Bantacs...Julia Hartmann. Its a couple of years old but I am unaware of any recent rulings or views of the Commissioner that alter this issue.

    In this letter from an ATO technical / executive officer and not some junior underlying the apparent question of interest capitalisation of property expenses and the application of Part IVA appears the theme of the questions posed.

    Interestingly, the ATO response has two bullet points towards the conclusion.
    1. Addresses the situation of using borrowed money due to an unexpected financial situation or unexpected change of circumstance. We see example that often include maternity leave, loss of work etc. The ATO appear to accept that in such cases its more likely that Part IVA would not be invoked to deny such a deduction for INTEREST or other costs.

    2. This bullet point is the matter of apparent concern. In this reply the ATO response contemplates NON-INTEREST deductions paid using a line of credit to pay unexpected costs of repair. Again the view taken is that Part IVA may be less likely to apply. The nexus is to the financial position again.. That is the major concern. The inverse position may well apply that where there is no unexpected change in financial position that any costs paid by LOC are a concern as an apparent scheme. Especially where a process of continued capitalisation is made.

    This raises a key concern. The ATO appear accepting of the view that Part IVA may well apply to the use of capitalised interest to pay property outgoings in a methodical and consistent manner of any kind where there is not a unexpected substantial change of financial circumstance. In other words, paying any costs where they are methodical and expected using borrowed funds and there is no financial circumstances imposing use of borrowings then there may be a concern.

    I share this concern and advocate anyone seeking to capitalise or increase loan balances (and therefore interest) for ANY property expenses on any ongoing basis seek a private ruling. I have reservations it may not be given.

    If anyone considers they may be in this position I would be acceptable to offer a test case by assisting your private ruling request (subject to conditions !) at no charge. Contact me directly (not through PC) and we can discuss. This offer may well appeal to someone considering use of such a process v's someone already doing it (which may then be an admission)
     
    Ran Gus, Redwing, WattleIdo and 3 others like this.
  2. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    7,780
    Location:
    Perth
    Thanks for posting @[email protected]. I am in the position where I could borrow to pay IP expenses but I have not done this because I don't feel it is justified in my case. My reasoning is this:

    1) I don't have non-deductible debt, so I can't argue that I am directing my income towards paying down non-deductible debt as a priority.
    2) I have sufficient income to cover all rental expenses and from this point of view I can't see a justification for borrowing to pay them.

    It's not something I would be comfortable explaining to the ATO, so I have chosen not to pursue this.
     
    Colin Rice likes this.
  3. Terry_w

    Terry_w Structuring Broker and a Structuring Lawyer Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,294
    Location:
    Remote
    It would certainly be interesting to see the ATO's response in a PBR. It could be guidance on the ATO's current approach, but a PBR only applies to the person who applies for it.

    So far there is nothing to indicate the ATO will apply Part IVA to deny a deduction and there is a good legal basis to be able to claim interest on money borrowed for investment expenses.
     
    Colin Rice, Jimmy D and Perthguy like this.
  4. All points I agree on. For anyone interested I seek to ask about an arrangement where a taxpayer has the following specific features :

    1. Has an existing IP and IP loan (or more than one loan for the acquisition)

    2. Taxpayer later applies for a new loan facility (LOC or other credit facility).

    3. The new loan facility from a commercial lender is intended to solely or predominantly pay rental outgoings for neg geared IP expenses except loan interest.

    4. Taxpayer has no immediate domestic / financial issues with meeting the rental outgoings but chooses to use borrowed funds.

    The ruling request would be for a ruling or determination, decision or other public opinion of the Commisssioner in preference to a BPR.
     
    Perthguy, Propagate and Terry_w like this.
  5. Hedgy

    Hedgy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6th May, 2016
    Posts:
    134
    Location:
    Sydney
  6. Terry_w

    Terry_w Structuring Broker and a Structuring Lawyer Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,294
    Location:
    Remote
    See Pauls signature for contact details.
     
    Hedgy likes this.
  7. smator

    smator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    106
    Location:
    Sydney
    Did you get someone to be your test dummy?
     
  8. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,000
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    Client...;)
     
  9. Redwing

    Redwing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,397
    Location:
    WA
    Crash Test Dummy? :D

    [​IMG]
     
  10. I have two taxpayers with slightly different issues who would meet the requirements.

    I am also considering a scheme that involves a offset facility. I think there is a Part IVA concern that follows with tax offsets used in a particularly common way. The common thread is these matter relate to engineering loans so that a deductible loan is maximised which otherwise may have a lower balance if the scheme features are not evident. I am considering this at present
     
    Perthguy likes this.
  11. r3ckless

    r3ckless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    88
    Location:
    Sydney 2219
    Interesting. I've seen similar threads like this appear before, but like one of the earlier posters. Previously I didn't have any non-deductible debt.

    Over the next 6 months, I will have some non-deductible debt, and obviously want to reduce/repay that if I can then focusing on maintaining the payments on my properties.

    Essentially whatever is outlayed throughout the year, I get this back through my annual tax return.

    I do have two undrawn LOC thats been set up a few years ago.

    Am I able to rely on these LOC's to pay for each properties interest/expenses, and direct all income throughout the year to my upcoming non-deductible debt. And on the tax refund each year, chuck that into the LOC to reduce?
     
    Perthguy likes this.
  12. Terry_w

    Terry_w Structuring Broker and a Structuring Lawyer Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,294
    Location:
    Remote
    r3ckless likes this.
  13. Colin Rice

    Colin Rice Mortgage Broker Australia Wide Business Member

    Joined:
    9th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    1,431
    Location:
    Perth
  14. Terry_w

    Terry_w Structuring Broker and a Structuring Lawyer Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,294
    Location:
    Remote
    ATo hasn't determined that capitalising interest is illegal. In fact they have even said it can be deductible - but they can deny the deduction in certain instances.

    Did you know that negative gearing is a scheme often done with the dominant purpose of increasing tax deductions. Part IVA could be applied to this too - but the ATO has indicated that it won't.
     
    Ran Gus, Perthguy and Colin Rice like this.
  15. Ran Gus

    Ran Gus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th Feb, 2016
    Posts:
    88
    Location:
    Australia
    If you had to defend against the ATO applying Part IVA in this situation, what would you rely on?

    It doesn't seem particularly onerous for the ATO to prove that the dominant purpose of paying rental outgoings via LOC is to gain a tax benefit, especially when you've got plenty of funds sitting there to pay them out of your own pocket.

    After all, what reason is there to borrow to pay outgoings when you have the ability to pay them out of your existing funds except to gain a tax benefit? Anyone have a good excuse?

    In saying that, the ATO seems extremely hesitant to apply Part IVA to anything, so it would be a surprise if they did choose to apply it to the scenario Paul has outlined.

    I think they like the threat of the stick rather than actually using it.
     
    Perthguy, kierank and Terry_w like this.
  16. Terry_w

    Terry_w Structuring Broker and a Structuring Lawyer Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,294
    Location:
    Remote
    Ran Gus and Perthguy like this.
  17. Negative gearing is a term used to describe passive investment. The scheme elements dont exist.
    The use of a LOC engineered to pay rental costs that are capitalised while the non-deductible loan is reduced has many elements of a scheme
     
  18. S0805

    S0805 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    397
    Location:
    VIC
    Interesting topic Paul. Please keep us posted on private ruling.

    I think, in most of the common arrangements ATO has left the door open to apply Part IVA for themselves. I guess when they see its being abused at a level not feasible they'll take couple of cases and prove the dominant purpose and restore the baseline. With unlimited pool of public money to fight legal case and proving the intent on most of the arrangements will not be difficult for them. I am sure, many people will be using these arrangements now and ATO most likely aware of this. Just have to make you are not the one they'll take court to.....frankly they have many bigger fish to fry now than these arrangements but surely time will come for these as well....