Compare documents

Under subsections 6-5(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) taxpayers must include in assessable income the gross income derived.

Where income is earned in one year of tax but received in another, the adoption of an appropriate method of determining when income is derived under subsections 6-5(2) and (3) in a relevant year of income is an issue of practical concern to taxpayers and their advisers. Two commonly used methods of determining when income is derived in a relevant year of income are the receipts method and the earnings method. This Ruling discusses the factors that are relevant in determining when, in our view, each method is the correct method to bring income to account for tax purposes.

This Ruling is not intended to be prescriptive; rather, it should be used as a guide.

Subsections 6-5(2) and (3), 6-5(4) and 995-1(1) (in relation to 'trading stock') of the ITAA 1997, to which this Ruling refers, express the same ideas as subsection 25(1), section 19 and subsection 6(1), respectively, of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).

This Ruling applies to individuals and entities who, for the purposes of taxation, must make use of the receipts and/or the earnings method of tax accounting to determine their assessable income.

This Ruling is not about the record keeping requirements of taxpayers. It refers only to the question of which method of accounting is likely to provide a substantially correct reflex of income in a relevant year.

This Ruling does not apply to income that is subject to specific provisions of the ITAA, e.g., dividends assessable under subsection 44(1) ITAA 1936 or securities assessable under Division 16E of Part III of that Act. It only applies to income assessable under subsections 6-5(2) and (3) of the ITAA 1997.

The 'receipts' method is sometimes called the 'cash received' basis or the 'cash' basis. Under the receipts method, income is derived when it is received, either actually or constructively under subsection 6-5(4) of the ITAA 1997. That subsection provides that income shall be deemed to have been derived by a person although it is not actually paid over, but is dealt with on his/her behalf or as he/she directs.

The 'earnings' method is often referred to as the 'accruals' method or the 'cash and credit' method. Under the earnings method, income is derived when it is earned. The point of derivation occurs when a 'recoverable debt' is created.

The term 'recoverable debt' is used to describe the point of time at which a taxpayer is legally entitled to an ascertainable amount as the result of having performed an agreed task. [F1] A taxpayer may have a recoverable debt even though, at the time, they cannot legally enforce recovery of the debt. [F2]

Whether there is, in law, a recoverable debt is a question to be determined by reference to the contractual agreements which give rise to the legal entitlement to payment, the general law and any relevant statutory provisions.

In this Ruling, business income or income from business activities means income generated by activities which amount to the carrying on of a business.

Investment income can come from any number of sources, but it commonly consists of: dividends; interest; rent; or royalties.

These are the assets that a business, in the normal course of its activities, will turn into cash or use in the day to day operations of the business. Typical examples are stocks for trading, consumable stores and debtors.

For the purposes of this Ruling, trading income (or income from trading) is income from the sale of trading stock (as defined in subsection 995-1(1) of the ITAA 1997).

For the purposes of subsections 6-5(2) and (3) of the ITAA 1997, the two commonly used methods of tax accounting for items of income are the receipts and earnings methods.

When accounting for income in respect of a year of income, a taxpayer must adopt the method which, in the circumstances of the case, is the most appropriate. A method of accounting will be appropriate if it gives a substantially correct reflex of income. Whether a particular method is appropriate to account for the income derived is a conclusion to be made from all the circumstances relevant to the taxpayer and the income.

The receipts method is likely to be appropriate to determine: • income derived by an employee; • non-business income derived from the provision of knowledge or the exercise of skill possessed by the taxpayer; and • business income where the income is derived from the provision of knowledge or the exercise of skill possessed by the taxpayer in the provision of services, subject to the qualifications listed at paragraph 45.

As a general rule, the receipts method will be appropriate to determine income derived from investments. However, there are exceptions to the general rule (refer paragraphs 47 and 48).

The earnings method is, in most cases, appropriate to determine business income derived from a trading or manufacturing business.

In cases not clearly within the descriptions at paragraphs 18 to 20, the factors that may assist to determine the correct method of accounting for income are set out in paragraphs 52 to 59. In the majority of cases we expect that the earnings method would eventuate as the most appropriate method of determining the income that has been derived for tax purposes.

Where a taxpayer has business income from more than one business activity, a separate evaluation should be made for each activity and a determination made as to which method is appropriate for the accounting of that income. In most cases, the same method is likely to be appropriate for income from all of these business activities. Fine distinctions are not necessary where the differences between the various business activities are not significant.

This Ruling applies to years commencing both before and after its date of issue. However, where taxpayers have accounted for income in accordance with previous ATO policy as discussed in paragraphs 24 and 25, this Ruling only applies from and including the 1997-1998 year of income. Also, this Ruling does 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 the Ruling (see paragraphs 21 and 22 of Taxation Ruling TR 92/20).

This Ruling replaces Taxation Determination TD 93/18, which will be withdrawn on finalisation of this Ruling.

At paragraphs 8 and 9 of Taxation Ruling IT 25 (concerning medical practice companies) and paragraphs 26 to 29 of Taxation Ruling IT 2503 (concerning professional practice companies), and in a statement issued by the Commissioner on 16 June 1970 (concerning very small businesses), it was indicated that certain classes of taxpayer should adopt particular methods of accounting for income. Those Rulings and that statement, to the extent that they require or allow the adoption of a particular method, will be withdrawn on finalisation of this Ruling.

For many taxpayers the income they derive in a year will be the income received in that year: Brent v. FC of T . [F3] For other taxpayers the income they derive in a year will be the income earned in that year: Henderson's case. [F4]

A taxpayer determines when income is derived by adopting a method of accounting for income. When accounting for income, for the purposes of taxation, a taxpayer must adopt the method of accounting which, in the circumstances, is appropriate. A method of accounting will be appropriate if it gives a 'substantially correct reflex' of that income. This is the principle established in Carden's case. [F5]

Whether a method gives a 'substantially correct reflex' and therefore is appropriate is a conclusion to be made from all circumstances relevant to the taxpayer and the income. It is necessary, according to Dixon J in Carden's case, [F6] to: ' ... discover what gains have during the period of account come home to the taxpayer in a realized or immediately realizable form.'

Appropriateness of the accounting method used by a taxpayer is the sole test for determining which method of accounting should be used: Henderson's case; [F7] Brent's case; [F8] and Barratt's case. [F9]

Only one method of accounting will be appropriate to any one item of income; there is no choice available. [F10]

A taxpayer who accounts for items of income on a receipts basis should continue to adopt that method until it is no longer appropriate. That will occur when the taxpayer's circumstances show the earnings method of accounting is the more appropriate method by which the income should be determined for tax purposes. This may occur because of the expansion of the business, or because the taxpayer may become involved in trading or manufacturing activities.

Similarly, a taxpayer who accounts for items of income on an earnings basis should continue to account for income in this way until changes in circumstances makes that basis inappropriate (see paragraphs 42, 43, 47 and 48).

Rather than setting down hard and fast rules, the approach of the courts, when deciding whether one or another method of accounting for income was appropriate, has been to weigh the total circumstances of a taxpayer and the income to determine whether the accounting method produces the correct reflex of income for the year.

In FCT v. Dunn [F11] Davies J, when discussing whether one method or another was appropriate, said: 'On the other hand, the question was not entirely one of law. The issue was the appropriate means of computing the income derived by the taxpayer. The circumstances of his occupation, how it was carried on and what records and books were kept were matters to be taken into account, and evidence as to accounting principles and practice was relevant. All these are matters of fact.'

In Carden's case Dixon J said: [F12] 'The considerations which appear to me to affect any such question are to be found in the nature of the profession concerned and, indeed, the actual mode in which it is practised in a given case.'

In some cases the individual circumstances of the taxpayer and the income, when weighed, will provide no clear direction or conflicting indicators as to which method of accounting is appropriate. It is our view that, in these cases, the earnings method would generally prevail unless it is an ' ... artificial, unreal and unreasonably burdensome method of arriving at the income derived'. [F13]

Ordinary accounting principles and commercial practice will be relevant, [F14] in the same way as these principles and this practice are relevant with respect to the concept of income for the purposes of subsections 6-5(1) to (3) of the ITAA 1997.

The weight to be given to accounting principles and commercial practice will, of course, depend on their relevance to the particular case.

The factors which would mitigate against the receipts method being appropriate for business income of a company include: • the commercial and accounting principles and practices governing accounts kept by companies generally require the accruals (earnings) method of bookkeeping; and • a company is generally not able to provide a service without relying on employees.

In relation to non-trading income, the general rule is that there must be a receipt; ' ... there must be something "coming in"; that is, for income tax purposes, receivability without receipt is nothing' (from Law of Income Tax , Sir Houldsworth Shaw and Mr Baker, quoted by Dixon J in Carden's case, [F15] and by Rich ACJ in Permanent Trustee Co (NSW) v. FC of T [F16] ).

Generally, for non-trading income, it is when amounts are received that they have, applying the words of Dixon J, [F17] 'come home to the taxpayer in a realized or immediately realizable form'.

Income from employment would normally be assessable on a receipts basis. [F18] Salary, wages or other employment remuneration are assessable on receipt even though they relate to a past or future income period. [F19] However, in limited situations, employment income paid as a lump sum will be eligible for a rebate (see Subdivision AB of Division 17 of Part III of the ITAA 1936); such income includes salary or wages accrued during a period ending more than 12 months before the date on which they are paid.

Income of this type would result from a single or isolated contract primarily involving the use of a taxpayer's particular skill or knowledge. Where the provision of knowledge or exercise of skill possessed by the taxpayer does not amount to the carrying on of a business, the income is assessable on a receipts basis. [F20]

Where the taxpayer provides his/her knowledge or exercises skill as part of a business carried on by the taxpayer, the income of the business may represent a reward for the provision of those personal services. Where the income results primarily from the services rendered, or work performed by the taxpayer personally, it will generally be assessable on a receipts basis. [F21]

However, the presence of any of the following factors to a significant degree, would indicate that the income is not simply a reward for the provision of personal services by the taxpayer: (a) the taxpayer's income producing activities involve the sale of trading stock; [F22] (b) the outgoings incurred by the taxpayer, in the day to day conduct of the business, have a direct relationship to income derived; [F23] (c) the taxpayer relies on circulating capital or consumables to produce income; [F24] or (d) the taxpayer relies on staff or equipment to produce income. [F25]

The presence of any of the above factors to a significant degree indicates that the earnings method may be the appropriate basis for determining income in respect of the relevant year. In cases where the above distinction is unclear, it may be necessary to consider the other circumstances relevant to the taxpayer and to the way the income is earned (refer paragraphs 52 to 59).

The general principle is that interest is only derived, or arises, when it is received or credited (refer comments of Dixon J in Carden's case; [F26] also In Re Income Tax Acts ; [F27] St Lucia Usines and Estates Co Ltd v. Colonial Treasurer of St Lucia ; [F28] Leigh v. Inland Revenue Commissioners ; [F29] Case 11 ; [F30] Whitworth Park Coal Co Ltd v. IRC ; [F31] and Case F26 [F32] ). This general rule is subject to the overall principle that the appropriate method will be that which gives a substantially correct reflex of income. So exceptions to the general rule include (but are not limited to): • interest from a business of money lending carried on by the taxpayer; • interest derived by a financial institution (TR 93/27); unless from a 'non-accrual loan' (TR 94/32); • interest from the everyday provision of credit as part of business activities (IT 2227); • interest derived by taxpayers who invest in fixed or variable interest securities cum interest (TR 93/28); and • interest from deposits made in the ordinary course of carrying on a business, where the business income is properly assessable on the earnings basis, is generally derived on a due and receivable basis. An example of this would be a large trading business which actively manages its funds on deposits.

Rent and royalties will generally be assessable when received or applied at the taxpayer's direction. However, where rent or royalties are derived from business activities, a substantially correct reflex of that income may be given by use of the earnings basis.

In relation to trading income, the general rule is that 'debts due but not yet paid must be included' in gross income (from Law of Income Tax , Sir Houldsworth Shaw and Mr Baker, quoted by Dixon J in Carden's case [F33] ). Accordingly, business income from manufacturing or trading is, generally, to be determined by the earnings method. This is because, in relation to those types of activities, the book debts represent what was previously trading stock or circulating capital: see Carden's case [F34] and Rowe's case. [F35]

When referring to trading stock in Rowe's case, [F36] Menzies J stated that: 'In a system of annual accounting, ordinary business considerations would indicate that what becomes owing to a company for trading stock sold during a year should, in some way, be brought into account to balance the reduction of trading stock which the transaction effects. Any other method of accounting would lead to a misrepresentation of the trader's financial position.'

In Rowe's case [F37] Menzies J also made the following statement: ' ... income from the sale of stock is derived when the stock is sold and a debt is created. It need not be payable in the year of income.'

There will be many taxpayers deriving business income of a type which is not clearly covered by the non-trading, or trading distinction. For such taxpayers the factors listed at paragraphs 53 to 59 may be particularly relevant. Generally, we consider that the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 53 to 59, if significant, indicate that the earnings method should be used, except in those circumstances where it is an '... artificial, unreal and unreasonably burdensome method of arriving at the income derived'. [F38]

The larger the business structure, the more likely is the reliance on employees and capital equipment to generate income and the more likely the earnings method of accounting is appropriate. [F39] In this regard, the size and function of any related entity should be taken into consideration. [F40]

Income may be generated by circulating capital or consumables and not by the taxpayer's services. [F41]

Where a taxpayer relies, to a significant extent, on circulating capital or consumables to produce income it is likely that the appropriate method for determining income will be the earnings method. [F42] Similarly, where a taxpayer's employees directly generate significant income, the earnings method is likely to be appropriate to account for that income in the relevant year. [F43] Also, where other variable costs of the taxpayer's business have a direct relationship, and significantly contribute, to the income produced, that income should be brought to account using the earnings method.

The reliance placed by the taxpayer on the use of capital items, such as plant and machinery, to produce income will be relevant. This is particularly so where expenses relating to the capital items have a direct relationship to the income produced. The greater the reliance, the greater the likelihood that the earnings method is the appropriate accounting method. [F44]

The debt collection policy of a taxpayer, who readily gives credit, and who relies on amounts owing by debtors to support drawings or other payments, will be a relevant indicator. For example, where a taxpayer has formal procedures for extending credit and collecting debts, the earnings basis is likely to be the more appropriate accounting method. [F45] The opposite conclusion could be reached where, subject to other factors, a taxpayer did not usually provide credit, the likelihood of debt recovery was low and recovery was generally not pursued. [F46]

The ITAA does not prescribe the books of account that a taxpayer carrying on a business must keep. All that is required is that the records kept '... record and explain all transactions and other acts': subsection 262A(1) of the ITAA 1936.

However, where the books of account are kept, the way they are kept is relevant but not determinative to the question of when income has been derived. The question is still whether the accounting method used produces the correct reflex of income for the relevant year. [F47]

Phoebe and Nancy are hairdressers carrying on a business in partnership. They own and run the business and do not have any employees. The business has few capital assets but stocks and sells a small range of hair care products. The sale of these products is not a significant part of business activities and does not significantly contribute to the assessable income of the business. Phoebe and Nancy have always accounted for their income on a cash received basis.

Phoebe and Nancy earn income from rendering their personal services and skills and from the sale of trading stock. However, because of the relatively insignificant contributions made to income of the business by the sale of trading stock, the receipts method of accounting would provide the correct reflex of the income in this case. However, the trading stock of the business must still be accounted for under section 28 of the ITAA 1936.

Michael and Valerie are accountants practising in partnership. The practice has a secretary, Liz, but all work issues under the direction and authority of Michael or Valerie. Michael and Valerie account for the income of the business on a receipts basis.

The partnership's outgoings include: Liz's wages, rent, electricity, motor vehicle running costs, telephone expenses and stationery. To increase partnership income, Michael and Valerie work longer hours. As the partners increase their hours, outgoings also increase; however, they do not increase in a similar proportion to the increase in income.

It is considered Michael's and Valerie's income is generated primarily by the knowledge and skill they possess rather than by the business structure. In these circumstances, the outlays of the business are not considered direct or significant contributors to the derivation of business income.

It can be accepted that, for purposes of tax, a substantially correct reflex of Michael's and Valerie's business income is given by the use of the receipts method of tax accounting.

Keith is a handyman who contracts with people to do a variety of jobs including repairing fences, fixing household items and small painting jobs. As part of this work, Keith is occasionally required to supply materials such as wood, nails and paint. Keith accounts for the income from the business on a receipts basis.

The materials purchased and used by Keith do not significantly contribute to his income. Keith is not considered to rely, to a significant degree, on circulating capital or consumables to produce income. Keith's income is considered to be derived from his services or personal efforts.

It is considered that, for purposes of tax, a substantially correct reflex of Keith's business income is given by use of the receipts method.

Tammie is a dentist who runs her own practice. Tammie employs another qualified dentist, Brian, two full time dental assistants and one full time receptionist/secretary. Although the majority of the patients who attend the practice are seen by Tammie, Brian performs work independently of Tammie and the income Brian generates is significant.

The equipment Tammie owns and uses in her business includes expensive and specialised dental chairs, drills and an X-ray machine. While Tammie requests patients pay at the time of each consultation, she regularly allows credit to patients and sends a reminder of the amount outstanding where necessary.

The relevant factors in this example are: • the income generated by Brian is significant; • Tammie relies on capital items, i.e., the equipment she owns and uses in the business; and • she extends credit and has procedures for the collection of debts.

It is considered that, for purposes of tax, a substantially correct reflex of Tammie's business income is given by use of the earnings method.

Linda is a sole practitioner doctor who runs her own practice. Linda employs a secretary, Frank, and a nursing assistant, Neil, who works under Linda's direction and supervision to perform minor tasks. Linda is a registered Medicare provider and bills Medicare for a percentage of her clients. In her practice Linda uses some diagnostic equipment such as a blood pressure monitor and scales. Linda accounts for the income from her practice on a receipts basis.

The existence of Linda's support staff and diagnostic equipment does not, of itself, make the earnings method the more appropriate method for determining the income of the practice for tax purposes. Nor does the fact that she is a registered Medicare provider and bills Medicare direct, necessarily make the earnings method the more appropriate method.

It is considered in this case that the income of the practice is derived predominantly from Linda's personal services. Linda does employ two staff, but she does not rely on them, to a significant extent, to produce her income. While Linda does use some diagnostic equipment, she does not rely on it to a significant extent to produce her income.

It is considered that, for purposes of tax, a substantially correct reflex of Linda's business income is given by use of the receipts method.

Roger has his own business. He owns and operates a backhoe. Roger does not employ any staff. He rents the backhoe out at a fixed rate per hour. The rate is for the backhoe and labour. Roger never rents the backhoe out separately. For the purposes of taxation, Roger has always returned the income from his business on the basis of cash received.

Whilst Roger's derivation of income involves his personal effort, it is considered that he relies to a significant extent on a capital asset, the backhoe, to derive income.

In industry terms, Roger's business has a small annual turnover and he has no related service entities. Roger's business does use some circulating capital and consumables, such as tyres, petrol and registration. However, these are not considered directly to produce income, nor to contribute significantly to income production. Roger does not usually extend credit and he requests payment on completion of the job. Roger maintains simple books of account, recording income when received.

The answer in this example is not straightforward because of the reliance on a significant capital asset which usually suggests that the earnings method is the more appropriate method of accounting. However, having regard to all of the circumstances relevant to Roger and the way he conducts his income earning activities, it is considered, on balance, that the receipts method is the more appropriate method for Roger to determine his business income for the purposes of taxation.

If you wish to comment on this Draft Ruling, please send your comments by: 19 September 1997 to: Contact officer details have been removed following publication of the final ruling.