Archive for Input tax credit recovery

New proposed RITC rate for trustee services

The ATO has for some time been unhappy with the manner in which many trusts have been claiming 75% reduced input tax credits (RITCs) for GST incurred on services acquired through their trustee or responsible entity by “inappropriate bundling”. The Government announced in the May 2010 Budget that the law would be changed from 1 July 2012, and the proposed changes to the GST regulations were released on 13 January 2012 in an Exposure Draft (link).

Investment trusts are generally unable to claim input tax credits for GST incurred as they make input taxed financial supplies, although they can claim RITCs for 75% of the GST incurred on acquisitions listed in items in regulation 70-5.02(2) of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999.  Many trusts have been claiming RITCs of 75% of the GST on every cost they incur, on the basis that they are part of “trustee services” within item 29 or “single responsible entity services” within item 31. Trusts can of course also claim normal input tax credits to the extent costs relate to their making taxable or GST-free supplies (if any).

While a trust is not a legal entity, it is effectively treated as an entity for GST purposes, being the trustee acting in its capacity as trustee of the trust (ie separate to its corporate/individual capacity). The trustee therefore acts in two separate capacities for GST purposes, and may make supplies and acquisitions in either of those two capacities.

Remuneration for trustees for their services and cost recovery arrangements can take many different forms depending upon the precise wording of the trust deed and associated documents. This could include:

  1. reimbursement out of the trust fund for expenses incurred, with or without an additional specific trustee fee
  2. trustee remuneration on a full cost recovery basis, with or without a mark-up
  3. a single amount (eg a fixed fee or a percentage of funds under management) covering both recovery of expenses and trustee remuneration.

What is the consideration for the acquisition of RITC-eligible “trustee services” by the trust in these scenarios?  In which of the two capacities is the trustee incurring external costs?

In the first scenario only the specific trustee fee would likely be consideration for supplying trustee services and covered by item 29, and the individual expenses would need to be separately examined for RITC-eligibility pursuant to other items in regulation 70-5.02(2).  Some of these expenses, eg advertising, tax compliance and audit expenses, would not by themselves be RITC-eligible.

However, arguably the expenses in the second and third scenarios above are effectively bundled into the trustee’s consideration for supplying RITC-eligible trustee services and so become RITC-eligible for the trust.  This is the distortion the proposed amendments are trying to redress.

The initial Government announcement was that the law would be changed to “unbundle” the trustee acquisitions in the bundled scenarios referred to above.  The Exposure Draft legislation now released however proposes an alternative option “favoured for simplicity and clarity” which introduces a new lower 55% RITC rate for trustee services.

New item 32 is proposed to be inserted into regulation 70-5.02(2) for services acquired by a “recognised trust scheme”, to the extent the services are performed on or after 1 July 2012. The services covered by item 32 are the acquisitions qualifying for the 55% RITCs.

Item 32 will only apply if the trustee carries on an enterprise in its own capacity that includes making taxable supplies to the recognised trust scheme, eg it will not apply where the trustee is not GST-registered in its corporate capacity. It also may not then apply if the trustee does not itself receive any remuneration for trustee services, eg in the first scenario above but where there is no specific trustee fee.

Also, specified services covered by other items will remain eligible for 75% RITCs, including:

  • brokerage services
  • investment portfolio management functions
  • certain administrative functions, and
  • custody services.

The 55% RITCs would appear to be available to the trust regardless of which of the two capacities the trustee originally incurred external costs in, although the need to determine the capacity in which the trustee incurs a cost is not completely removed by these proposals. For example, the trustee needs to know what to report on the Business Activity Statements prepared in its corporate capacity. Also, when a cost is incurred from overseas, the capacity in which the trustee incurs the cost may dictate whether the trust needs to reverse charge GST or the trustee needs to charge GST to the trust instead.

The result should then be that all GST-bearing services acquired the trust are eligible for either 75% or 55% RITCs, but there will still be some work to do to allocate costs between these two GST recovery buckets.

Note also that proposed item 32 only applies to a “recognised trust scheme”.  This is defined to be a managed investment scheme under section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001, or an approved deposit fund, pooled superannuation trust, public sector superannuation scheme or regulated superannuation fund (other than a self managed superannuation fund) within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.  Other types of trusts will still be subject to the existing rules.

While it will cover unregistered managed investment schemes as well as registered ones, there could be an issue as to whether all of the trusts (eg sub-trusts) in an investment trust hierarchy satisfy the Corporations Act definition and are therefore covered by item 32 as currently drafted.

Comments on these proposals close on 24 February 2012. Investment funds should closely examine the impact of these proposals, including how particular acquisitions would be classified from 1 July 2012 under these proposals, the potential financial impact, what system changes would be needed, and whether they wish to participate in the consultation process.

Post to Twitter

GST-free brokerage and input tax credit recovery for foreign share transactions

The previous post referred to how the ATO has sought to apply the Travelex decision to foreign exchange businesses like Travelex itself.  The Travelex case however has further implications relating to the scope of GST-free treatment for various types of services and rights, including in respect of foreign share transactions.

Pursuant to item 4 of the table in section 38-190(1) of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, a supply is GST-free if it is a supply that is made in relation to rights and the rights are for use outside Australia.

The ATO on 21 December 2011 issued an addendum to its public ruling on this provision, GSTR 2003/8 (link), to deal with the Commissioner’s loss in the Travelex litigation.  An Interpretative Decision, ATO ID 2012/1 (link), issued on 6 January 2012 further discusses the implications for transactions involving foreign shares listed overseas.

The ATO now concedes that item 4 does not just apply to the creation, grant, transfer or surrender of a right, but extends to:

  • supplies of things comprising a bundle of rights that derive their value exclusively, or almost exclusively, from those rights; and
  • supplies of services directly connected with rights.

The first of these includes the bank notes dealt with in the Travelex case.  The ATO also now accepts that it covers supplies of shares.

In most situations where there is a supply of shares in a foreign company (or units in a foreign trust etc), the transaction is between an Australian enterprise and a non-resident, and the supply (or acquisition-supply) of shares by the Australian enterprise is GST-free under item 2 of the table in section 38-190(1).  However, item 2 does not cover a supply of shares in a foreign company between two Australian residents.  Contrary to its previous position, the ATO would now accept that it is a supply that is made in relation to rights, but the issue remains whether those rights are for use outside Australia.  This is addressed in ATO ID 2012/1.

The ATO comments that if the company in which particular shares are held was incorporated in an overseas location and those shares are listed on an exchange in that overseas location, the rights attached to those shares will be for use in that overseas location. This is the case even if the holder of the shares is in Australia at the time any dividend is declared or received, or is in Australia at the time any on-sale of the shares it may make takes place.  Not sure if this is consistent with the ATO’s conclusion on inbound FX transactions referred to in the previous post???

This Interpretative Decision also does not explicitly cover unlisted foreign shares, and the addendum to GSTR 2003/8 sheds no further light on this specific situation.  However the presumption must be that, in the absence of any other overwhelming contradicting fact, incorporation overseas will dictate that the rights are for use outside Australia as the rights of each shareholder is contained in and derived from the memorandum and articles of association (or the equivalent documents in overseas jurisdictions) of the company, and overseas legislative or regulatory requirements.

The sale of shares in a foreign company between two Australian residents should therefore be GST-free, with the resulting ability of the parties to claim full input tax credits for any GST they incur on associated costs.  The treatment of foreign trusts and other entities may depend upon the nature of the legal rights.

As mentioned above, the ATO also accepts that services directly connected with rights can also be covered by item 4.

In the addendum to GSTR 2003/8 and in ATO ID 2012/6 the ATO states that the supply of brokerage services is directly connected with rights as they affect the ownership of rights.  ATO ID 2012/6 goes on to conclude that, if the rights themselves are for use outside Australia, the services are in relation to rights for use outside Australia.  The supply of brokerage services is then GST-free.

The addendum to GSTR 2003/8 also discusses what other services may be directly connected with rights, including the types of legal and advisory services that are and are not covered by item 4.

Suppliers of services relating to foreign share transactions should review the GST treatment of their services going forward.  For past transactions where GST was charged to the Australian enterprise which did not claim full input tax credits (eg it only claimed 75% reduced input tax credits), the parties need to consider the ability to claim GST refunds from the ATO.

Other transactions involving tangible things which are worthless but for the bundles of rights encompassed, and services directly related to them, may also now qualify for GST-free treatment.

Post to Twitter