Understanding Market Value: When we talk about the "market value" of land, we mean figuring out its highest and best use. Basically, we look at what the land could be used for that would bring in the most profit. Usually, if land can be split into smaller parts (like for building houses), its value goes up.
Watch out: Selling a property you've held for a long time as a rental might not always be considered a regular sale for tax purposes.
Usually, when you sell a property used for renting or investing, it's seen as simply cashing in on an investment (known as 'capital account'), even if you've fixed it up. That's because properties like these are usually bought for long-term purposes, not specifically to make a profit.
But sometimes, selling a property that's been rented out for a while can be seen as part of a money-making plan or business. This usually happens when there's been a lot of building work involved. One case, called August v FCT [2013] FCAFC 85, shows how profits from selling such properties can be seen as part of a money-making plan.
In the August case, the person bought blocks of land over time, renovated some, built buildings on others, and rented them out. Then, they sold them, including one group of shops.
The outcome: It was seen as a money-making plan.
Here's why: The court didn't believe the person's intention was to hold the properties for the long term, mainly because their story about why they bought and sold the shops didn't add up. Plus, there were inconsistencies in their evidence.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tax Ideas Accountants & Advisers. You can also book an appointment through our live calendar.
In August's situation, the court looked at a deal involving a big piece of land called the 'Hume Property'. The owner bought it with the plan to make money by developing, renting, and selling it. Later, they sold it without developing or splitting it. They argued that because they abandoned the plan to make money, the sale wasn't part of the plan anymore.
But the court disagreed, saying the situation wasn't like a previous case called Kratzmann's case. In Kratzmann's case, the plan to make money didn't involve selling the land, but here it did. Also, the fact that the land was sold without being leased or split didn't change that it was still part of the money-making plan.
So, it's hard to use Kratzmann's case as a precedent here because the situations are different. Another case, Rosgoe Pty Ltd v FCT, did apply Kratzmann's case successfully, but that case's value as a precedent is limited because it was based on specific facts provided in a Private Binding Ruling, not a general ruling.
In short, it's tricky to rely on Kratzmann's case here because the circumstances are not the same.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tax Ideas Accountants & Advisers at
+61 2 83181545 or book an appointment using our live calendar.
Some people disagree about whether a taxpayer can give up on a plan to make money. They point to statements from previous court cases like Westfield v FCT and Myer's case. These statements suggest that if a transaction is not part of the usual business and the profit wasn't made in the intended way, then it might not be considered taxable income.
Enter your email address for receiving valuable newsletters.
© Copyright 2023 – Ideas Group
Leave a Reply