Income tax: capital gains: treatment of forfeited deposits

This Ruling explains the capital gains tax (CGT) consequences of: (a) the receipt by a vendor of a forfeited deposit, forfeited instalments of the purchase price and damages; and (b) the payment by a purchaser of a deposit that is forfeited; and considers matters raised by the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in FC of T v. Guy 96 ATC 4520; (1996) 32 ATR 590 (the Guy case) and related issues.

This Ruling applies to a vendor who receives a deposit under a contract for the sale of real estate (or receives a deposit pre-contract) and, as a result of the contract being terminated, a purchaser or prospective purchaser forfeits the deposit and the vendor becomes entitled to retain the deposit. It also applies to instalments of the purchase price which are forfeited and retained by a vendor and to damages received by a vendor as a result of a defaulting purchaser's breach of contract.

This Ruling also considers whether a defaulting purchaser is entitled to a capital loss for a forfeited deposit.

This Ruling does not consider: • the application of section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA97) to a vendor recipient; or • the application of section 8-1 to a defaulting purchaser.

References in this Ruling are to the ITAA97 unless otherwise indicated. The following table provides cross references between the provisions of the ITAA97 dealt with in this Ruling and the corresponding provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA36). ITAA97 ITAA36 section 6-5 subsection 25(1) section 8-1 subsection 51(1) section 104-10 subsection 160M(1) subsection 104-10(2) subsection 160M(1) subsection 104-25(1) paragraph 160M(3)(b) paragraph 104-25(1)(c) paragraph 160M(3)(b) subsection 104-25(2) subsections 160U(3), 160U(4) section 104-35 subsections 160M(6), 160M(6A) paragraph 104-35(5)(b) subsection 160MA(2) section 104-150 subsection 160ZZC(12) subsection 104-150(2) paragraphs 160ZZC(12)(a), 160ZZC(3)(a) section 104-155 subsection 160M(7) subsection 108-5(1) paragraph 160A(a) section 109-5 subsection 160M(6B) subsection 109-5(1) subsection 160M(6B) subsection 109-5(2) subsection 160M(6B), subparagraphs 160U(6)(a)(i), 160U(6)(b)(i) Division 110 section 160ZH subsection 110-25(2) paragraphs 160ZH(1)(a), 160ZH(2)(a), subsection 160ZH(4) subsection 110-25(3) subsections 160 ZH(1), 160ZH(2) paragraph 110-25(3)(a) paragraphs 160ZH(1)(b), 160ZH(2)(b) paragraph 110-25(3)(b) paragraph 160ZH(1)(e), 160ZH(2)(e) section 110-35 subsections 160ZH(5), 160ZH(7) section 112-20 subsection 160ZH(9) subsection 112-20(1) paragraph 160ZH(9)(a) subsection 112-20(3) paragraph 160M(6B)(b) subsection 116-20(1) subsection 160ZD(1) paragraph 116-20(1)(a) paragraph 160ZD(1)(a) section 116-25 subsection 116-30(1) paragraph 160ZD(2)(a) subparagraph 116-30(3)(a)(i) paragraph 160ZD(2B)(a) section 118-110 subsection 160ZZQ(12) paragraph 118-110(2)(b) subsection 160ZZQ(12) Subdivision 122-A section 160ZZN Subdivision 126-A section 160ZZM section 126-5 section 160ZZM Subdivision 126-B section 160ZZO Division 128 section 160X

For the purposes of this Ruling the following terms are used:

Entry into a standard contract for sale of real estate constitutes the making of an actual contract of sale. The Federal Court in the Guy case held that such a contract is not a 'prospective purchase or other transaction' for the purposes of subsection 160ZZC(12) of the ITAA36. Section 104-150, which deals only with prospective sales or other transactions, therefore does not apply to a deposit forfeited under an actual contract for sale. However, we consider that other CGT provisions apply with the effect that a forfeited deposit is assessable as a capital gain in certain circumstances.

It is unlikely that a deposit paid under a prospective sale, such as a holding deposit paid pre-contract, would be subject to forfeiture. However, if this does occur we consider section 104-150 applies. If section 118-110 (main residence exemption) also applies, the capital gain or capital loss is disregarded.

If: (a) a forfeited deposit is received by a vendor; and (b) the forfeiture occurs as part of a 'continuum of events' (see paragraphs 16 to 19 of this Ruling) constituting a later disposal of the real estate the subject of the earlier contract of sale ('the underlying asset'); the forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the later disposal. In other words, the forfeited deposit takes on the same character as the sale proceeds for the underlying asset. In this case, the underlying asset is the most relevant asset.

It follows that, if the underlying asset was acquired by the taxpayer before 20 September 1985, or is subject to the main residence exemption, i.e., it has exempt status, there are no CGT consequences for the receipt of the forfeited deposit. Refer to Examples 1 and 2 in this Ruling.

If the underlying asset was acquired by the taxpayer on or after 20 September 1985 (and is not subject to the main residence exemption), the forfeited deposit adds to a capital gain or reduces a capital loss made on any later disposal of the underlying asset provided the forfeiture occurred as part of a 'continuum of events' which constituted the disposal of the underlying asset. Refer to Example 3 in this Ruling.

Conversely, if there is no later disposal of the underlying asset, or any later sale of the underlying asset did not occur within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of that asset, the forfeited deposit can not form part of the capital proceeds from a disposal of that asset. It does not take on the same character as the sale proceeds for the underlying asset because there has been no disposal of that asset. In this case, the vendor's bundle of contractual rights is the most relevant asset. There has been an acquisition and an ending of ownership of these contractual rights by the vendor with the result that the forfeited deposit is subject to the CGT provisions (CGT event C2 in section 104-25 - about cancellations, surrenders and similar endings of intangible CGT assets). This means that a forfeited deposit received in relation to a main residence or an asset acquired before 20 September 1985 may be assessable as a capital gain. Refer to Example 4 in this Ruling.

If a contract for sale of real estate is terminated and a deposit is forfeited, it may be the case that instalments paid under the contract before its termination are also forfeited. If a vendor becomes entitled to retain part or all of an instalment, or lawfully applies instalment moneys towards the satisfaction of damages, this Ruling applies to a forfeited instalment in the same manner as it applies to a forfeited deposit. That is, if the instalment is forfeited within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of the underlying asset, a validly forfeited instalment forms part of the capital proceeds from the later disposal of the underlying asset. If the instalment is not forfeited within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of the underlying asset, the forfeited instalment represents capital proceeds from the ending of the vendor's ownership of a right to seek compensation (CGT event C2).

If damages are received as part of the 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the damages also form part of the capital proceeds from that later disposal. This Ruling therefore applies to the receipt of damages in the same manner as it does to the receipt of a forfeited deposit. If there is no relevant 'continuum of events' the damages represent capital proceeds from CGT event C2 happening to the vendor's right to seek compensation, with the same consequences as for forfeited instalments.

Generally speaking, a forfeited deposit or an amount of damages is capital proceeds from a disposal of the underlying asset or capital proceeds from CGT event C2 happening to the contractual rights or the right to seek compensation. CGT event H2 can not happen in these circumstances. CGT event H2 may only happen if the amount received does not relate to any CGT event happening to any of the above assets: paragraph 102-25(3).

What is a 'continuum of events' which constitutes a disposal of an underlying asset? For a relevant 'continuum of events' to exist, there must be an earlier contract to sell the underlying asset, forfeiture of a deposit and a later bona fide disposal of the underlying asset. It is also necessary, in our view, for continuous and reasonable attempts to be made to resell the real estate after the earlier contract has fallen through which end in this later disposal of the real estate. Refer to Examples 5 and 6 in this Ruling.

While no temporal requirement exists, the longer the period between forfeiture and later disposal the more difficult it will be to show a 'continuum of events' which constitutes a disposal of the underlying asset. For example, it will be difficult to show a 'continuum of events' of more than 2 years from the date of forfeiture under the earlier contract.

If there is no longer a 'continuum of events' which constitutes a disposal of an underlying asset (e.g., after a 2 year period), a vendor is required to amend their earlier year's income tax return in which the forfeiture occurred and include the forfeited deposit as assessable income. This is on the basis that the vendor's contractual rights are the most relevant asset and that there has been an acquisition and an ending of ownership of their contractual rights (CGT event C2). Refer to Example 7 in this Ruling.

We consider the words, 'uninterrupted sequence of transactions' in paragraph 118-110(2)(b), broadly speaking, have the same meaning as the phrase 'continuum of events' as used in this Ruling.

Application of the contractual rights approach to a defaulting purchaser may give rise to a capital loss in certain circumstances. Whether a capital loss arises depends on the amount of the cost base of the purchaser's contractual rights and the capital proceeds from the ending of the purchaser's ownership of those rights.

No consideration is usually received by a purchaser on the termination of their contractual rights. If no capital proceeds are received from a CGT event, generally the taxpayer is taken to have received the market value of the CGT asset that is the subject of the event (subsections 116-30(1) and 116-30(3A)).

The market value of the right to a transfer of the real estate is the value of the real estate less the amount still to be paid. If the market value of the real estate at the time of termination of the contract has dropped below the balance payable on completion of the contract, the market value of the contractual rights will be nil and a bona fide purchaser is entitled to a capital loss being the amount of the deposit forfeited plus incidental costs.

The following table summarises the CGT consequences of the receipt by a vendor of a forfeited deposit, forfeited instalments of purchase price and damages. Deposits paid pre contract, i.e., holding deposits Forfeited deposits under actual contracts Damages and forfeited instalments Main residence Forfeiture within continuum of events Not assessable CGT event H1 (s104-150) happens but capital gain is disregarded s118-110 Not assessable CGT event H1 (s104-150) does not happen and under s118-110 any capital gain arising under any other provision is disregarded Not assessable s118-110 Forfeiture not within continuum of events Assessable CGT event H1 (s104-150) Assessable CGT event C2 (s104-25) happens to the vendor's contractual rights Assessable CGT event C2 (s104-25) happens to the vendor's right to seek compensation. Asset acquired pre 20/9/85 (not a main residence) Forfeiture within continuum of events Assessable CGT event H1 (s104-150). Not assessable Not assessable

This Ruling applies to years commencing both before and after its date of issue. However, the 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). Also, if a taxpayer has obtained a more favourable private ruling (whether legally or administratively binding) this Ruling applies to that taxpayer to the extent of the inconsistency only from its date of issue.

The approach outlined in TR 94/29 (paragraphs 13 to 20) is consistent with the decision in the Guy case. TR 94/29 provides that if a contract for the sale of land falls through, a capital gain may arise on the receipt of damages, with the relevant asset being either the right to seek compensation or the notional subsection 160M(7), ITAA36, asset. It is only if the damages are received as part of a 'continuum of events' that constitute the disposal of a taxpayer's main residence, or of an asset acquired before 20 September 1985, that an exemption may apply.

To the extent of this inconsistency, this Ruling, on its finalisation, will take precedence over TR 94/29. In particular, paragraph 17 of TR 94/29 states the relevant asset is either the right of action or the notional asset. If damages are received as part of a 'continuum of events' that constitute the disposal of an underlying asset, the relevant asset is, in accordance with this Ruling, the underlying asset. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of this draft Ruling are more favourable to taxpayers than paragraphs 16 and 17 of TR 94/29. In accordance with paragraph 12 of TR 92/20, these paragraphs of the draft Ruling, when finalised, will have both a past and future application (subject to the statutory limits of section 170 of the ITAA36).

The treating of a vendor's contractual rights as the most relevant asset in certain circumstances as outlined in this Ruling should not be taken to be inconsistent with the discussion in paragraph 43 of TR 94/29 regarding the decision in Zim Properties Ltd v. Proctor (1984) 58 TC 371 and subsection 160MA(2), ITAA36. That discussion clearly presumes the sale of the underlying asset in saying that the land is the relevant asset being disposed of and not the contractual rights.

The issue whether a forfeited deposit retained by a vendor of real estate is assessable under the CGT provisions was considered by the Full Federal Court in FC of T v. Guy 96 ATC 4520; (1996) 32 ATR 590.

Briefly, the facts of the Guy case are as follows. The taxpayers exchanged contracts on the sale of their principal residence for a sale price of $906,000. A deposit of $45,300 was received. The purchasers failed to complete the purchase in accordance with the contract. The contract was terminated and the deposit was forfeited. The taxpayers also sued the purchasers for damages and this claim was settled in the sum of $65,000. Later, the taxpayers resold their residence to a new purchaser for $830,000 being the market value at the time of sale.

At issue was whether the forfeited deposit and the damages were assessable under the CGT provisions of the ITAA36. In particular, did section 160ZZC of Part IIIA apply to deem the forfeited deposit to be in respect of the grant of an option and therefore become subject to CGT and, if so, did the principal residence exemption in section 160ZZQ then apply to exempt the gain.

The Court concluded that although the term 'prospective purchase' in subsection 160ZZC(12) would bring within the subsection's scope the forfeiture of a holding deposit, subsection 160ZZC(12) does not apply to the forfeiture of a deposit paid under an actual contract for purchase. The Court also concluded that the falling through of the original sale, the forfeiture of the deposit and the later resale were all part of a 'continuum of events' leading to the disposal of the taxpayer's principal residence. Accordingly, the exemption under subsection 160ZZQ(12) would have applied in any case.

The Court also concluded that the recovery of damages formed part of the 'continuum of events' which constituted the disposal of the dwelling so as to be included as something 'in respect of' that disposal. Accordingly, it was also exempt under subsection 160ZZQ(12).

Although argued before the Court, the Court did not specifically address in its judgment whether the receipt of the damages may have, but for subsection 160ZZQ(12), given rise to a capital gain under any other provision of Part IIIA.

Contracts for the sale of land normally provide for the payment of a deposit (usually 10% although other amounts may be agreed), payable at the time of entering into the contract, and the balance of the purchase price being payable on completion or by instalments. The deposit paid by a purchaser under a binding contract for sale serves several purposes. It is an earnest given to bind the bargain; it is a guarantee that the purchaser means business and, on completion, it becomes part payment of the purchase price (see Howe v. Smith (1884) 27 Ch D 89 at 101; Brien v. Dwyer (1978) 141 CLR 378 at 392).

Broadly, if a purchaser defaults the vendor is entitled to terminate the contract and the purchaser forfeits the deposit. The deposit is forfeited to the vendor at the time of termination of the contract.

The Full Federal Court in the Guy case considered that entry into a standard contract of sale (whether by exchange of contracts or both parties signing the one contract) constitutes the making of an actual contract of sale. It held that subsection 160ZZC(12), ITAA36, does not apply to a deposit forfeited under an actual contract for sale. Accordingly, CGT event H1 in section 104-150 also does not happen to a deposit forfeited under an actual contract for sale. Nevertheless, other CGT provisions may apply with the effect that a forfeited deposit is assessable in certain circumstances.

It is unlikely that a deposit paid under a prospective sale such as a holding deposit paid pre-contract would be subject to forfeiture because a prospective purchaser is generally entitled to a return of their holding deposit. If forfeiture does occur, CGT event H1 happens. If section 118-110 (main residence exemption) also applies the capital gain or capital loss is disregarded.

If a holding deposit under a prospective sale is forfeited, CGT event H1 happens and the prospective vendor makes a capital gain if the deposit is more than the expenditure incurred in connection with the prospective sale: see subsection 104-150(3).

The time of the CGT event is when the deposit is forfeited (subsection 104-150(2)). (See also Case 32/94 94 ATC 298; AAT Case 9538 (1994) 28 ATR 1230). A prospective vendor makes a capital gain or capital loss in the year in which the deposit is forfeited.

The most relevant asset approach, in the context of this Ruling, is the process of analysing all the possible assets of the taxpayer in order to determine the asset to which the forfeited deposit, forfeited instalment or damages most directly relates.

If a forfeited deposit is received by a taxpayer, and the forfeiture occurs as part of the 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds under subsection 116-20(1) from the later disposal. In other words, the forfeited deposit takes on the same character as the sale proceeds of the underlying asset and is therefore part of the capital proceeds from the later disposal. In this case the underlying asset is the most relevant asset.

If the underlying asset is exempt, e.g., acquired by the taxpayer before 20 September 1985 or subject to the main residence exemption, there are no CGT consequences in respect of the forfeited deposit providing the forfeiture occurred as part of a 'continuum of events' which constituted the disposal of the underlying asset. The deposit is simply taken to be part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of an exempt asset.

Paragraph 1-6 20(1)(a) states that capital proceeds from a CGT event include: 'the money you have received, or are entitled to receive, in respect of the event happening'.

The expression 'in respect of' denotes a relationship or connection between two things: SGIO (Qld) v. Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549 at 559; 26 ALR 341 at 351 per Mason J. The phrase is capable of describing relationships over a wide range of degrees of proximity: the meaning to be attributed to it on a particular occasion depends on the context: FC of T v. Tully Co-operative Sugar Milling Association Ltd 83 ATC 4495 at 4506; (1983) 14 ATR 495 at 508. The words 'in respect of', in their context in paragraph 116-20(1)(a), have a meaning wide enough to include a forfeited deposit in the capital proceeds from the disposal of an underlying asset if the forfeiture of the deposit and the later disposal occur as parts of a 'continuum of events'.

If the underlying asset does not have exempt status, e.g., it was acquired by the taxpayer on or after 20 September 1985, and is not subject to the main residence exemption, the forfeited deposit adds to a capital gain or reduces a capital loss made on the later disposal of the underlying asset provided the forfeiture occurred as part of a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of the underlying asset.

Conversely, if there is no later disposal of the underlying asset, or any later sale of the underlying asset did not occur within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of that asset, the forfeited deposit can not form part of the capital proceeds from a disposal of the underlying asset. It does not take on the same character as the sale proceeds of the underlying asset because there has been no relevant disposal. In this case, the vendor's bundle of contractual rights, and not the underlying asset, is the most relevant asset. There has been an acquisition and an ending of ownership of contractual rights by the vendor with the result that the forfeited deposit is subject to the CGT provisions (CGT event C2). This means that a forfeited deposit received in relation to a main residence or a property acquired before 20 September 1985 is, in some circumstances, assessable as a capital gain.

In essence, this approach combines the underlying asset approach outlined in Taxation Ruling TR 95/35 with the 'continuum of events' approach used in the Guy case. As TR 95/35 points out, if compensation is received in respect of the disposal of an underlying asset, the compensation represents consideration received on the disposal of that asset and not the right to seek compensation, i.e., if the underlying asset has been disposed of the compensation receipt is treated as part (or all) of the disposal consideration. If there has been no disposal and no permanent damage or permanent reduction in value of an underlying asset, the compensation relates to the disposal of the right to seek compensation.

This is consistent with the approach taken in this Ruling in that, if a forfeited deposit is received as part of a 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the forfeited deposit is treated as part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. If any later sale of the underlying asset does not occur within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of that asset or there is no later disposal, we do not look through to the underlying asset but treat the bundle of contractual rights as the most relevant asset. The 'continuum of events' approach used in the Guy case assists in determining whether a forfeited deposit is received in respect of the disposal of an underlying asset.

The Full Federal Court in the Guy case used the phrase 'continuum of events' in its obiter dicta on the principal residence exemption (96 ATC at 4531; 32 ATR at 601), viz; 'In our opinion, the "disposal" of the taxpayers' dwelling should be characterised as starting with the sale to the Starlings and as including both the falling through of that sale and the completed sale to the Rookes very soon after. There was, we think, no interruption in that continuum of events which might justify not treating all that took place as not being " ... in respect of the disposal of the dwelling" within the meaning of sub-s 160ZZQ(12). Furthermore, that view is consonant with what would commonly be regarded as the "disposal of a dwelling". A dwelling is put on the market, a contract is made, the purchasers default, the dwelling is put straight back on the market and then it is sold. It must follow, in our view, that the exemption provided by Division 18 extended to the forfeiture of the deposit which occurred as part of this continuum. The forfeiture may fairly be regarded as part of the disposal of the dwelling, rather than as an event divorced from that process ....' (emphasis added).

The Macquarie Dictionary defines the word 'continuum' as 'a continuous extent, series or whole'. It defines 'continuous' as 'having the parts in immediate connection, unbroken. Uninterrupted in time, without cessation'.

Having regard to the ordinary meaning of the word 'continuum', and the use by the Court in the Guy case of the words emphasised above, for a 'continuum of events' to exist there must be an earlier contract to sell the underlying asset, forfeiture of a deposit and a later bona fide disposal of the underlying asset. In addition, we consider it is necessary for there to be continuous, unbroken and uninterrupted reasonable attempts to resell the property after the falling through of an earlier contract of sale which end in this later disposal.

Notwithstanding this, a delay in immediately placing the property back on the market after an earlier sale has fallen through may not, in certain circumstances, break the 'continuum of events'. For example, a delay that is caused by the time taken to consult a legal adviser as to the possibility of commencing legal action against the defaulting purchaser, or to consult a real estate agent for the purpose of determining an appropriate marketing strategy to resell the property, would not generally break the 'continuum of events'. This is providing the property is placed back on the market as soon as possible after such advice has been obtained and continuous and reasonable attempts are then made to resell the property.

Also, if the commercial reality is that a vendor needs to carry out renovations or even subdivide land to effect a resale of the property, this action of itself, will not break the 'continuum of events' providing always the vendor retains their commitment to resell the property and the other requirements of a 'continuum of events' are met. Refer to Examples 8 and 9 in this Ruling.

If no acceptable reason exists for a delay in placing the property back on the market, such a delay will break the 'continuum of events'. The consequences of this are as outlined in paragraph 12 above.

If the property is immediately placed back on the market but at an above-market price, or if it is technically back on the market but no real attempts are made to sell it, it is likely that the taxpayer will not have the required bona fides and commitment to sell and this will also result in a break of the 'continuum of events'. It is also likely in this situation that there would be an unduly lengthy disposal period (or no disposal) which would further indicate the lack of the required continuity and bona fides.

In some situations, the vendor may pursue an action for damages after terminating a contract before attempting to resell the property. This will not break a 'continuum of events', providing the other requirements of a 'continuum of events' are met, if such action is actively and continuously pursued until finality or settlement and continuous and reasonable attempts are then made to resell the property and the property is in fact resold.

Alternatively, a vendor may resell the property before commencing legal action. If the property is resold within a 'continuum of events' and legal action is then commenced and pursued continuously until resolution, any damages received form part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset.

If a forfeited deposit has been retained by a vendor and the asset is then subject to an 'involuntary' rollover such as on death (Division 128) or marriage breakdown (Subdivision 126-A) the rollover relief available will effectively also take into account the forfeited deposit providing the requirements of a 'continuum of events' are satisfied up to the time of rollover. Refer to Example 10 in this Ruling.

If a forfeited deposit has been retained by a vendor and the asset is then transferred to a related entity - so that Subdivision 122-A (rollover to a wholly owned company) or Subdivision 126-B (rollover to wholly owned group company) rollover relief would be attracted - it is likely that this will break the 'continuum of events'. Such a transfer evidences a new way of holding an asset and is not consistent with a continuing intention and effort to resell the asset. Refer to Example 11 in this Ruling.

In addition to the requirements that: (a) there be a later bona fide disposal of the property; and (b) continuous and reasonable attempts be made to resell the property which end in this later disposal; in determining whether a 'continuum of events' has or has not been broken it is appropriate to have regard to a time limit within which the later disposal needs to occur. This is because it is often the case that no later disposal ever occurs. This has primarily been due to no, or discontinued, attempts being made to resell the property. We have identified some cases in which no later disposal has ever occurred despite an elapsed period of, in some cases, 8 to 10 years. Obviously, in these circumstances the bundle of contractual rights, rather than the underlying asset, is the most relevant asset.

We consider that a period of 2 years is an appropriate benchmark. It appears, based on cases examined and discussions held, that if continuous and reasonable attempts are made to resell the property, most properties are actually resold within 2 years. Two years is, therefore, a commercially realistic period.

Even if there are on-going attempts to resell the real estate, its later disposal needs to occur within 2 years from the date of forfeiture under the earlier contract for it to continue to be the most relevant asset. If this does not occur, taxpayers may not reasonably be in a position to rely on a 'continuum of events', in which case they should amend their income tax returns for the earlier year in which the forfeiture occurred. The amendment would include the forfeited deposit as a capital gain on the basis that there has been an ending of ownership of contractual rights. Of course, if the 'continuum of events' is broken before the end of the 2 year period, taxpayers are required to amend the relevant year's return at that time and not wait until the 2 year period has expired.

It is, however, open to a taxpayer to show that, on a later resale of the underlying asset outside the 2 year period and providing continuous and reasonable efforts were made to resell the property, a 'continuum of events' was not broken. If so, they could request an amendment at that time to exclude the forfeited deposit. However, in the first place it would be prudent for them to include the forfeited deposit in assessable income in the relevant income year once the 2 year period has elapsed. If a taxpayer considers that the 'continuum of events' might extend past the four year amendment time limit set out in subsection 170(3), ITAA36, they should lodge a 'protective objection'.

A taxpayer may become liable for the payment of interest under section 170AA if they are required to amend an earlier year's return. However, although each case will be dealt with on its own merits, we expect that the discretion in subsection 170AA(11) would be exercised to remit the interest in full if requests for amendment are lodged, and if relevant, self amendments are made, within a reasonable time after the expiry of the 2 year period.

In most cases, we would consider a period of one month after the expiry of the 2 year period to be reasonable for this purpose. However, we accept that there may well be circumstances where a taxpayer can establish that a longer period is reasonable. One exception to this is if there has clearly been a break in the 'continuum of events', for example, if a property is simply not put back on the market after a contract has fallen through. In this case, the forfeited deposit should be included in assessable income in the relevant income year. No remission of interest is likely in these circumstances.

Although in the Guy case the Court referred to 'the completed sale ... very soon after' (emphasis added), it is appropriate that the 2 year period be measured from the date of forfeiture of the deposit under the earlier contract for sale to the date of contract of the later resale of the property. Using the date of settlement of the later resale, instead of the date of contract would be complicated by delayed settlements which are sometimes negotiated. However, if it appears a taxpayer is attempting to manipulate the period and defer a tax liability by purporting to enter into a contract of sale with deferred settlement terms (which ultimately may not be completed), the later contract is likely to be disregarded.

As noted above, if any later sale of the underlying asset does not occur within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of that asset or there is no later disposal: (a) the contractual rights of the vendor are the most relevant asset; (b) there has been an acquisition and an ending of ownership of these contractual rights by the vendor; and (c) the forfeited deposit is subject to the CGT provisions.

The bundle of contractual rights a vendor acquires under a contract of sale is a CGT asset for the purposes of the CGT provisions: subsection 108-5(1). The explanatory memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 4) 1992 recognises that rights under a contract are an example of an incorporeal asset.

These rights include a right to purchase money, a charge or lien on the real estate for the security of that purchase money and a right to retain possession of the real estate until the purchase money is paid, in the absence of an express contract as to the time of delivering possession (see Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499 and Australian Real Property Law, A. Bradbrook, S. MacCallum, A. Moore, The Law Book Company Ltd, 1991 at p.233).

These rights are acquired by a vendor within the meaning of section 109-5. CGT event D1 in section 104-35 happens if someone creates a contractual right or other legal or equitable right in another entity. When a purchaser enters into a contract they create these rights in the vendor.

Subsection 1-9 5(2) event number D1 specifies when a CGT asset is acquired as a result of a CGT event happening (to someone else). If CGT event D1 happens to the purchaser, the asset is acquired by the vendor when the contract is entered into or the right is created. The contractual rights acquired by the vendor are, therefore, acquired when the contract is entered into.

The market value cost base rules contained in subsection 112-20(1) do not apply to the acquisition of the contractual rights by the vendor if the vendor did not pay or give anything for the rights: see subsection 112-20(3), item 3. Accordingly, because the vendor has not paid or given, nor is required to pay or give, money or property in respect of the acquisition, the first element of the cost base of the contractual rights is zero (subsection 110-25(2)).

There may be incidental costs of acquisition in terms of section 110-35 which will be included in the second element of the cost base under paragraph 110-25(3)(a). Legal fees incurred by the vendor of the underlying asset (being the one who is acquiring the contractual rights) in entering into the contract are incidental costs of acquisition of the contractual rights if the contract falls through and there is no later disposal within a 'continuum of events'. If a later disposal occurs within a 'continuum of events', or if the contract does not fall through but is completed in the normal manner, we consider that such costs are part of the incidental costs that relate to the disposal of the underlying asset (paragraph 110-25(3)(b), section 104-10).

If, after a purchaser's default, a vendor terminates the contract and retains the deposit, CGT event C2 in subsection 104-25(1) happens because the vendor's ownership of contractual rights has ended. At the time of termination of the contract the rights have been subject to a 'release', 'surrender' or 'abandonment'.

In some instances, legal action may be commenced by the purchaser to recover the deposit on the basis that, for example, either the vendor was in default or the quantum of the deposit was such that it (or part of it) should be construed as a penalty and therefore not be subject to forfeiture.

Regardless of the outcome of the legal action, the date of termination of the contract remains the time the CGT event happens to the contractual rights of the vendor. If the action results in the return of the deposit to the purchaser, this does not affect the timing of the CGT event. Rather, it is an issue concerning the quantum of the capital proceeds.

On a purchaser forfeiting a deposit, the vendor becomes entitled to retain the deposit. Therefore, in terms of subsection 116-20(1), the vendor has received, or is entitled to receive, money in respect of a CGT event happening. (Before forfeiture, while the contract is still on foot, the deposit is held by the stakeholder pending the completion of the contract.)

Thus, there is an acquisition of a CGT asset for a cost base limited to incidental costs and a CGT event happening with capital proceeds equal to the amount of the forfeited deposit. It follows that the forfeited deposit (less the incidental costs) constitutes a capital gain and therefore is fully assessable to the vendor.

Does paragraph 1-4 35(5)(b) preclude CGT event D1 (in section 104-35) happening to the vendor's contractual rights as outlined above? It reads: 'CGT event D1 does not happen if: (b) the right requires you to do something that is another CGT event that happens to you;'.

The short answer is no.

If a vendor enters into a contract to sell real estate to a purchaser, the vendor creates a right in the purchaser to require the vendor to transfer the property. As discussed in the explanatory memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 4) 1992, it is arguable that the vendor has received, as consideration for creating that right, the amount of the consideration payable for the disposal of the real estate. If this is so, section 104-35 would apply to make the whole of the consideration a capital gain to the vendor. This would lead to a situation where the same amount could be capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset (CGT event A1 - section 104-10) and also be capital proceeds from the creation of the contractual rights (CGT event D1 - section 104-35).

To avoid this and put the issue beyond doubt, paragraph 104-35(5)(b) prevents CGT event D1 happening on the creation of a right that requires something to be done that is another CGT event that happens.

However, it is the contractual rights created by the purchaser in the vendor that we are concerned with in applying the contractual rights approach outlined above, e.g., the vendor's rights to require payment by the purchaser of the sale proceeds. As the payment of the sale proceeds by the purchaser does not constitute a CGT event, paragraph 104-35(5)(b) does not apply so that section 104-35 is not precluded from applying.

The bundle of contractual rights of a vendor is of a proprietary nature and is an asset even before the 25 June 1992 amendments.

The High Court of Australia in FC of T v. Orica Limited 98 ATC 4494; (1998) 39 ATR 66, recently held, unanimously on this point, that rights under a 'Principal Assumption Agreement' (entered into in 1986) were an asset for CGT purposes. Gummow J noted that such rights were created under the general law of contract (at ATC 4518, paragraph 110; ATR 96, paragraph [110]).

Rights that are capable in their nature of assumption by third parties are rights of a proprietary character: cf. The Queen v. Toohey: ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327 at 342-3; Meagher, Gummow and Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies, 3rd ed, paragraph 695. However, as the majority in the Orica case noted, it is important to bear in mind the statement by Kitto J in National Trustees and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd v. FC of T (1954) 91 CLR 540 at 583 that, '...alienability is not an indispensible attribute of a right of property ...'. In any case a vendor may lawfully assign their interest under the contract (i.e., their right to the purchase money) to a third party either by way of equitable assignment or legal assignment pursuant to section 12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) or similar provisions in other States. (See generally Assignment of Choses in Action, Starke J.G., Butterworths, 1972, at pp38-40).

A vendor's bundle of contractual rights, in our view, is therefore an asset both before and after the 25 June 1992 amendments.

Contractual rights created and vested in a vendor before 26 June 1992 are taken by paragraph 160M(5)(c), ITAA 36, to have been acquired by the vendor.

A CGT event may happen to contractual rights acquired before 26 June 1992. If the vendor terminates the contract, for instance, CGT event C2 in subsection 104-25(1) happens to the rights.

If a contract for sale is terminated and the deposit forfeited it may be the case that instalments paid under the contract before its termination are also forfeited. Whether a vendor is legally entitled to retain the instalments will depend on such things as the terms of the contract and the operation of contract and conveyancing law.

In general, a defaulting purchaser is entitled to a return of such moneys. A contractual provision which requires one party, on their breach, to forfeit an amount to the other party is unlawful as being a penalty. This is so unless it can be justified as being a payment of liquidated damages as a genuine pre-estimate of the loss the innocent party will incur (see Workers Trust & Merchant Bank Ltd v. Dojap Investments Ltd [1993] AC 573 at 578). The longstanding exception to this is, of course, a deposit paid under a contract for sale.

If a vendor seeks to retain an instalment paid under a contract, the purchaser may take legal action seeking recovery of the instalment and/or the vendor may take legal action seeking to obtain damages and retention of the instalment. The legal action may result in the vendor being entitled to retain all or part of the instalment. Such an outcome may also occur if the parties settle their respective actions by entering into an agreement.

The retention of instalment moneys pending the determination of damages does not of itself give rise to a capital gain. However, if a vendor becomes entitled to retain part or all of an instalment, or lawfully applies instalment moneys toward the satisfaction of damages resulting from the purchaser's breach, this Ruling applies to a forfeited instalment in the same manner as it applies to a forfeited deposit. That is, if the real estate is resold within a 'continuum of events', a validly forfeited instalment forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset with the same consequences as outlined in paragraphs 9 to 11 above. Refer to Example 12 in this Ruling. If any later sale of the underlying asset does not occur within a 'continuum of events' constituting the disposal of that asset, the forfeited instalment represents capital proceeds from the ending of the vendor's ownership of his or her right to seek compensation. Refer to Example 13 in this Ruling.

A right to seek compensation is a CGT asset (see Taxation Ruling TR 95/35). If a breach of contract occurs, the asset is generally acquired at the time of the breach.

The cost base of the right to seek compensation is determined by Division 110. Legal fees and charges connected with the proceedings and incurred during the course of proceedings may be included in the cost base of the asset in terms of subsection 110-25(3) and section 110-35. Section 112-20 cannot apply to give the taxpayer a market value cost base.

CGT event C2 in subsection 1-4 25(1) happens when the taxpayer agrees to a release, discharge, satisfaction or surrender of their right to seek compensation. This is at the final point of settlement of the claim, whether in the course of Court proceedings, or in an out of Court arrangement. The time of the event determined by subsection 104-25(2) is the time of entering into the relevant contract or when the asset ends. This may be the entering into the contract, the settlement agreement, or when the Court makes a determination.

It follows that, if the right to seek compensation is the most relevant asset, i.e., any 'continuum of events' has been broken, a forfeited instalment is not assessable in the year the contract is terminated but later when legal action between the parties has been finalised or settled.

If an instalment is forfeited by a purchaser to a vendor but no legal action is taken to seek compensation for the purchaser's breach of contract, CGT event C2 will not happen until the vendor's right to seek damages becomes statute barred, i.e., there is an expiry in terms of paragraph 104-25(1)(c).

Whether or not forfeited instalments are involved, a vendor may, on the purchaser's breach, sue for and receive damages. In the Guy case, the Court considered (96 ATC at 4531; 32 ATR at 602): '... the recovery of damages also formed part of the process, or continuum of events, which constituted the disposal of the dwelling, so as to be picked up as something "in respect of" that disposal, and accordingly exempt from the operation of Part IIIA'.

Accordingly, if damages are received as part of the 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the damages form part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. This Ruling, therefore, applies to the receipt of damages in the same manner as it does to the receipt of a forfeited deposit with the consequences as outlined in paragraphs 9 to 11 above.

If the underlying asset has been resold within a 'continuum of events' but damages are not received until after the resale, the damages still form part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. If the damages are received in a financial year later than the one in which the underlying asset was resold then, if the underlying asset is not an exempt asset, an amendment of the earlier year will be necessary to include the damages as part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset.

A taxpayer may become liable for interest under section 170AA, ITAA36, if they are required to amend an earlier year's return. However, although each case will be dealt with on its own merits, it would be expected that the discretion in subsection 170AA(11), ITAA36, would be exercised to remit the interest in full where requests for amendment are lodged, and where relevant, self amendments are made, within a reasonable time after the receipt of the damages. In most cases, we would consider a period of one month after such receipt to be reasonable for this purpose. However, there may well be circumstances where a taxpayer can establish that a longer period is reasonable.

If any 'continuum of events' has been broken, the damages represent capital proceeds from the ending of the vendor's ownership of the right to seek compensation with the same consequences as for forfeited instalments outlined in paragraphs 93 to 98 above.

Does the law allow a capital loss to a defaulting purchaser? Can a defaulting purchaser obtain a capital loss by the application of the contractual rights approach to the purchaser's contractual rights? In determining this, it is necessary to firstly consider the possible application of paragraph 104-35(5)(b).

As noted earlier, there is a question whether paragraph 104-35(5)(b) precludes CGT event D1 in section 104-35 from happening. It provides that if a right is created in another entity that requires something to be done that is another CGT event that happens, CGT event D1 does not happen to the creation of the right.

Thus, if a vendor enters into a contract to sell real estate to a purchaser, and therefore creates in the purchaser a right to require the vendor to dispose of the real estate, on a literal reading of paragraph 104-35(5)(b), section 104-35 does not apply. The effect of this might be that there is no acquisition of an asset under section 109-5 by the purchaser to which a CGT event could later happen so as to produce a loss.

However, on closer examination of the provisions, paragraph 104-35(5)(b) simply provides that if a right is created by one entity (first entity) in another entity which requires something to be done by the first entity that is another CGT event, CGT event D1 does not happen. It does not provide that the right should be ignored for CGT purposes.

The effect of paragraph -04 35(5)(b) is that section -04 35 does not apply to give rise to a taxing point for the creator but section 109-5 still applies to a created right to bring about an acquisition of the right by the person in whom the right is created.

The main purpose of the amendments to subsection 160M(6), ITAA36, as set out in the explanatory memorandum to Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No 4) 1992, is to clarify the operation of subsection 160M(6) with the effect that, if a person creates an incorporeal asset in another person, any consideration received by the creator for creating the asset will be a capital gain.

The explanatory memorandum describes the purpose of subsection 160MA(2), ITAA36, as ensuring that subsection 160M(6) does not apply to deem a capital gain in respect of a created right if the right is a right to require a disposal of an asset (which itself would be subject to the CGT provisions). In effect, it avoids the potential for double taxation.

The application of the contractual rights approach to a defaulting purchaser does not result in the potential for double taxation. Accordingly, paragraph 104-35(5)(b) does not impede such an approach.

Having dealt with the paragraph -04 35(5)(b) issues above, does the contractual rights approach apply to give a defaulting purchaser a capital loss.

It seems clear that the purchaser's bundle of contractual rights, e.g. the right to a transfer of the property, is an asset for CGT purposes. Being proprietary rights, they are an asset as defined both before and after 26 June 1992.

These rights are created by the vendor in the purchaser and are taken to have been acquired by the purchaser when the purchaser becomes the owner of the rights, that is, when the contract is entered into (subsection 109-5(1)).

The cost base of these rights is the amount of the deposit, being money paid in respect of acquiring the rights, plus any incidental costs of acquisition and any incidental costs that relate to a CGT event happening to the rights.

If the purchaser defaults, the vendor terminates the contract and the purchaser forfeits the deposit, there is a surrender, forfeiture or abandonment of the rights such that there is an ending of the purchaser's ownership of the rights. So, CGT event C2 happens (subsection 104-25(1)). Under subsection 104-25(2), the time of the CGT event is when the rights end, that is, at the time the contract was terminated.

Usually, no capital proceeds are received by a defaulting purchaser on the ending of their contractual rights. If a taxpayer receives no capital proceeds from a CGT event, generally the taxpayer is taken to have received the market value of the CGT asset that is the subject of the event (subsection 116-30(1)).

The market value of the right to a transfer of the real estate is the value of the real estate less the amount still to be paid. Assuming no movement in the value of the real estate between the date of contract and the date of forfeiture, this market value will be the amount of the deposit already paid. For example, if a deposit of $10,000 is paid on entering into a contract for the sale of land for $100,000, the value of the right to require a transfer of the land comprises the value of the land, i.e., $100,000, less the liability to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price, i.e., $90,000. The market value of the right is therefore $10,000.

With the market value of the right being equal to the amount of the deposit paid, and the cost base being the amount of the deposit paid plus incidental costs, a capital loss only to the extent of the incidental costs would arise. Refer to Example 14 in this Ruling.

If the market value of the real estate has decreased to or below the amount of the unpaid purchase price between the date of the contract and the date of forfeiture, a purchaser is able to claim a capital loss for the full amount of the deposit forfeited. This may occur in the case of a deferred settlement (where the price drops) or if a rapid downturn occurs in the market. Most cases we have examined have in fact fallen into these categories as a marked drop in the market value of the property is often the reason behind a purchaser defaulting.

The general rule for substituting market value if no capital proceeds have been received does not apply to CGT event C2 if it is the expiry of a CGT asset (subparagraph 116-30(3)(a)(i)). The market value substitution rule in subsection 116-30(1) also does not apply if there is a loss or destruction of a CGT asset (CGT event C1) - section 116-25.

Do the contractual rights of a purchaser expire or are they lost or destroyed on termination of the contract?

It would appear that 'expiry' is limited to a situation in which an asset ends because of the effluxion of time, for example, when a period to exercise an option expires. When an option expires, it has no value irrespective of actions taken on behalf of the option holder. Substituting a market value at the time of the asset ending as if the option had not expired would give an inappropriate result. The Macquarie Dictionary definitions of 'expiry' and 'expire' support an effluxion of time construction, viz; 'a coming to an end; close; to die out, as a fire; to emit the last breath'.

'Destruction' seems to imply a positive or definite action on something, rather than a more passive giving up of something. It also seems to apply to physical assets only.

'Loss' in the context in which it is used, arguably only refers to an involuntary loss. Some of the Macquarie Dictionary definitions of the word 'loss' include 'the accidental or inadvertent losing of something dropped, misplaced or of unknown whereabouts; destruction or ruin'. Use of the words 'accidental' and 'inadvertent' certainly tend to imply an involuntary rather than voluntary act.

Further, the context in which the word appears in the table in section 116-25 coupled as it is with the word 'destruction' seems to imply that only an involuntary 'loss' is envisaged. Indeed, as noted above, one of the meanings of the word 'loss' is destruction.

Also, the legislature's choice of the range of words used in subsection 104-25(1) compared with the much more limited use of words in the table in section 116-25 and in subparagraph 116-30(3)(a)(i) indicates a much narrower scope was intended. Arguably, as a result of the purchaser's voluntary act or omission which occasions the breach of contract, they abandon or surrender their contractual rights and then forfeit the deposit to the vendor. If it was intended that the exceptions to the market value substitution rule should include an abandonment of rights it would have been a simple task to explicitly include it.

There has not been an 'expiry', 'loss' or 'destruction' of the purchaser's contractual rights on termination of the contract, and therefore, the market value substitution rule contained in subsection 116-30(1) applies.

If the market value of the real estate at the time of termination of the contract has dropped to or below the balance payable on completion of the contract, the market value of the contractual rights will be nil and a bona fide purchaser will be entitled to a capital loss of the amount of the deposit forfeited plus incidental costs. Refer to Example 15 in this Ruling.

Alison acquired her main residence after 19 September 1985. In June 1992 she entered into a contract for the sale of the property for $400,000. A deposit of $20,000 was paid under the contract. In October 1992 the purchaser defaulted and Alison terminated the contract and the deposit was forfeited to her. The property was immediately remarketed and in November 1992 the property was resold for $320,000.

As the forfeited deposit was received as part of the 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of that asset and is eligible therefore for the main residence exemption.

Lachlan purchased a property for primary production purposes before 20 September 1985. After retiring, he entered into a contract to sell the property in June 1996 for $570,000. The sale was not completed and the deposit of $57,000 was forfeited to Lachlan in November 1996. The property was immediately remarketed and resold under a contract dated December 1996 for $505,000.

As the forfeited deposit was received as part of the 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of that asset. As the property was acquired before 20 September 1985, the forfeited deposit is not subject to CGT.

Olivia purchased a vacant block of land in August 1988. In April 1989 she entered into a contract to sell the land for $460,000. A deposit of $46,000 was paid under the contract, settlement being due in April 1990. The purchaser later defaulted and in May 1990 Olivia terminated the contract and the deposit was forfeited to her. In June 1990 the land was resold for $320,000.

As the forfeited deposit was received as part of a 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset, the forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the land under subsection 116-20(1). As the land was acquired after 19 September 1985, the forfeited deposit is in effect assessable as it will add to a capital gain or reduce a capital loss made on the disposal of the land. Total capital proceeds from the disposal of the land is $366,000.

Susan acquired her main residence in 1980. In May 1994 she contracted to sell the property for $360,000 and a deposit of $36,000 was paid under the contract. The purchaser did not complete the contract and so forfeited the deposit to Susan on 31 August 1994. Susan attempted to resell the property by relisting it with a real estate agent for 6 months. However, this was unsuccessful. The property was then withdrawn from the market and remains unsold. As there has been no disposal of the underlying (exempt) asset, the main residence exemption contained in section 118-110 can not apply.

In this case, the vendor's bundle of contractual rights, and not the underlying asset, is the most relevant asset. There was an acquisition and an ending of ownership of the contractual rights by the vendor with the result that the forfeited deposit (less incidental costs) constitutes a capital gain in the 1994-95 year.

Daniel acquired a large tract of vacant land in 1968. In February 1991 he entered into a contract of sale for the land with a developer for $14m under which a deposit of $350,000 was paid. The contract was not completed by the purchaser and the deposit was forfeited in February 1992.

In March 1992, Daniel corresponded with the property investment manager of a large institution to offer the property for sale. In April 1992 he also corresponded with a commercial property developer who arranged site inspections and for the introduction of potential Japanese buyers. Between May 1992 and March 1993, the property was listed with another real estate agent and was inspected by a number of interested parties from overseas. In the period between March and May 1993 the property was prepared for auction. It did not sell at auction. However, after further continued attempts to attract a buyer, the property was sold in September 1993.

In these circumstances, there have been continuous and reasonable attempts to resell the property after the original contract fell through. The forfeited deposit has been received within a 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the land and therefore the forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. As the land was acquired before 20 September 1985, the forfeited deposit is not subject to CGT.

Johannes acquired a rental property in 1980. In March 1991 he entered into a contract to sell the property for $2.1m. A deposit of $210,000 was paid under the contract with settlement due in March 1993. However, the purchaser defaulted and the deposit was forfeited to Johannes in April 1993. The property was then withdrawn from sale and not placed back on the market until March 1995. In July 1995 the property was resold.

As the 'continuum of events' was broken the forfeited deposit can not be taken to be part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying (exempt) asset. Rather, a capital gain arises to the vendor in the 1992-93 year as there has been an acquisition and an ending of ownership of the vendor's contractual rights, the contractual rights being the most relevant asset.

Assume the same facts as in Example 4 except that Susan continued attempts to resell the property. Despite her attempts, Susan had still not resold the property by 31 August 1996 and this time lapse itself would be indicative of a break in the 'continuum of events'. At this point, there is substantial doubt whether a 'continuum of events' continues unbroken. So, Susan is well advised to amend her 1994-95 income tax return to include the forfeited deposit as a capital gain on the basis that there has been an ending of her ownership of her contractual rights on 31 August 1994, the contractual rights being the most relevant asset. Susan later withdraws the property from the market.

If Susan had discontinued her attempts to resell the property in, say, August 1995, she would be required to amend her 1994-95 return (or include the forfeited deposit in that return if it had not been lodged) then and not wait any longer (e.g., until the 2 year period has expired).

Len acquired his farming property in 1948 and farmed the land until his retirement in 1993. He offered the property for sale and later entered into a contract for sale with the owner of a neighbouring farm. A deposit of $50,000 was paid under the contract.

The neighbour did not complete the contract and the deposit was forfeited to Len. Len put the farm straight back on the market. However, Len's real estate agent advised that, in view of the drought and increasing uncertainty with export markets, it would be difficult to sell the farm as a going concern and that subdividing the land may be the only means of disposing of the property.

Accordingly, Len subdivided the land, marketed it and sold the subdivided blocks.

Len has shown a continuous commitment to resell the property after the original contract fell through. He has taken reasonable advice in the circumstances to subdivide the land as a means of disposing of it. At all times he pursued his intention to dispose of the land.

In these circumstances, the subdivision of the land did not break the 'continuum of events'. The forfeited deposit was received within a 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the land. The forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. As the land was acquired before 20 September 1985, the forfeited deposit is not subject to CGT.

Giovanni acquired a residential property for rental purposes in 1980. He leased the property to various tenants over the years before deciding to dispose of the property in 1993. He entered into a contract for sale in November 1993 under which a deposit of $10,000 was paid. The purchaser did not complete the contract and the deposit was forfeited in April 1994.

Giovanni became aware that unauthorised alterations had been made to the property by the tenant and that restoration work was needed. It remained his intention to dispose of the property as soon as possible. He proceeded to carry out the required work before relisting the property for sale. Shortly after the work was completed the property was resold in October 1994.

In these circumstances, the carrying out of the renovations did not break the 'continuum of events'. The forfeited deposit was received within a 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset. The forfeited deposit forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. As the rental property was acquired before 20 September 1985, the forfeited deposit is not subject to CGT.

Richard acquired a residential property for rental purposes in 1986. In March 1995 he entered into a contract to sell the property. The purchaser did not complete the contract and the deposit was forfeited to Richard in June 1995. Richard immediately attempted to resell the property. However, before he could do so the property was transferred to his spouse pursuant to a Family Court order.

In these circumstances, the rollover relief available under section 126-5 effectively exempts the forfeited deposit from CGT.

Lana acquired industrial premises in 1976 to conduct her steel fabrication business. In March 1996 she entered into a contract to sell the property. The purchaser did not complete and the contract was terminated and deposit forfeited to Lana in June 1996.

Lana relisted the property and continued attempts to resell it. While she was doing so, she decided to transfer the property to a wholly owned company.

Such a transfer is not consistent with a continuing intention to resell the asset and therefore breaks the 'continuum of events'. In this situation the vendor's bundle of contractual rights is the most relevant asset. There was an acquisition and an ending of ownership of these rights by the vendor with the result that the forfeited deposit (less incidental costs) constitutes a capital gain in the 1995-96 year.

Helen acquired a commercial property in 1974. In May 1989 she entered into a contract to sell the property for $2m. A deposit of $200,000 was paid under the contract. An instalment of the purchase price of $500,000 was also paid in August 1989 in accordance with the contract with settlement due in August 1992. The purchaser later defaulted and the deposit was forfeited in June 1992.

Legal action was commenced against the purchaser and settled in November 1992 on the basis that the vendor was entitled to retain the instalment already paid under the contract. The property was resold soon after in December 1992.

In these circumstances, the forfeited instalment (and the forfeited deposit) were received as part of a 'continuum of events' constituting the later disposal of the underlying asset. The forfeited instalment forms part of the capital proceeds from the disposal of the underlying asset. As the property was acquired before 20 September 1985 the forfeited instalment is not subject to CGT.

Ben acquired 42 ha of vacant land in 1965 for grazing purposes. In March 1990 he entered into a contract to sell the land for $6.2m. A deposit of $600,000 was paid at the time of the contract. An instalment of $2.6m was also paid in March 1991 in accordance with the contract. Settlement was due in March 1992. The purchaser defaulted after which the contract was terminated and the deposit forfeited in April 1992.

The property remained on the market and in November 1992 was offered for sale at auction. However, no sale eventuated.

Legal action was commenced by both parties and was settled in February 1993 by both parties entering into an agreement resulting in the vendor not being entitled to anything further by way of damages and the purchaser not being entitled to a return of any part of the amounts previously paid.

After the auction in November 1992, the property was withdrawn from sale and not placed back on the market until March 1996. In June 1996 the property was resold. As the 'continuum of events' was broken the forfeited deposit is assessable in accordance with Example 6.

With respect to the forfeited instalment, the most relevant asset is Ben's right to seek compensation. This right was acquired at the time of the purchaser's breach and ended at the time the legal action was settled, i.e., February 1993. The forfeited instalment represents capital proceeds from the ending of Ben's ownership of the right.

Assume the same facts as Example 6. Megan, the purchaser, defaulted and forfeited the deposit of $210,000 to the vendor in April 1993. At this time, the market value of the property was still $2.1m, being the market value sale price specified in the original contract.

The market value of the property at the time of termination of the contract had not decreased. The market value of the purchaser's contractual rights (and hence the capital proceeds from the CGT event that happens to those rights) remains the amount of the deposit already paid - $210,000, that is, the value of the land less the amount still to be paid. As the cost base is also $210,000 plus incidental costs, the purchaser is entitled to a capital loss only to the extent of the incidental costs.

Assume the same facts as Example 14 except that when the contract was terminated and the deposit forfeited in April 1993 the market value of the property was$1.5m, having decreased from the $2.1m specified in the contract.

As the market value of the property at the time of termination of the contract had dropped below the balance payable on completion, the market value of the purchaser's contractual rights is nil and the purchaser is entitled to a capital loss of the amount of the deposit forfeited (plus incidental costs).

Below is a detailed contents list for this draft Ruling: paragraph What this Ruling is about 1 Class of person/arrangement 2 Cross references of provisions 5 Key terms 6 Most relevant asset approach 6 Underlying asset 6 Continuum of events 6 Contractual rights 6 25 June 1992 amendments 6 Ruling 7 CGT event H1 in section 104-150 (about forfeitures of deposits) 7 Most relevant asset approach 9 Contractual rights as the most relevant asset 12 Forfeited instalments of the purchase price 13 Damages 14 CGT event H2 in section 104-155 (about receipts for events relating to CGT assets) 15 What is a 'continuum of events'? 16 Does a defaulting purchaser make a capital loss? 20 Summary of this Ruling for a vendor 23 Date of effect 24 Effect of this Ruling on Taxation Ruling TR 94/29 25 Explanations 28 General aspects of the Ruling 28 The Guy Decision 28 What is a deposit? 34 CGT event H1 in section 104-150 (about forfeiture of deposits) 36 Explanation of the most relevant asset approach 40 Taxation Ruling TR 95/35 and the 'continuum of events' approach 47 What is a continuum of events? 49 Explanation of the contractual rights approach 67 General concepts 68 After the 25 June 1992 amendments 68 CGT asset 68 Acquisition 70 Cost base 72 CGT event 74 Capital proceeds 77 Capital gain 78 Operation of paragraph 104-35(5)(b) 79 Before the 25 June 1992 amendments 84 Asset 84 Acquisition 88 CGT event 89 Forfeited instalments and damages 90 Forfeited instalments 90 Right to seek compensation 94 What is the cost base of the asset? 95 When does a CGT event happen? 96 Damages 99 Does a defaulting purchaser make a capital loss? 104 Paragraph 104-35(5)(b) 105 Contractual Rights 112 CGT asset 113 Acquisition 114 Cost base 115 CGT event 116 Capital proceeds 117 Examples 130 Example 1 (main residence disposed of within a 'continuum of events') 130 Example 2 (pre CGT asset disposed of within a 'continuum of events') 132 Example 3 (disposal of a post CGT asset within a 'continuum of events') 134 Example 4 (main residence, no disposal) 136 Example 5 (example of what constitutes a 'continuum of events') 138 Example 6 (broken 'continuum of events') 141 Example 7 (variation of Example 4, no disposal within 2 years, amendment required 143 Example 8 (land subdivision, 'continuum of events') 145 Example 9 (renovation before resale, 'continuum of events') 150 Example 10 (rollover relief, 'continuum of events') 153 Example 11 (rollover relief, break in, 'continuum of events') 155 Example 12 (forfeited instalment, disposal within a, 'continuum of events') 158 Example 13 (forfeited instalment, no 'continuum of events') 161 Example 14 (defaulting purchaser, no capital loss) 166 Example 15 (defaulting purchaser, capital loss) 168

If you wish to comment on this Ruling, please send your comments by 28 May 1999 to: Contact officer details have been removed following publication of the final ruling.