Topics on active assets classification (3)

The main issue in Eichmann's case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether the land owned by the taxpayer qualified as an active asset under tax law, specifically under section 152-40(1)(a), and thus, whether the taxpayer could apply the Small Business Concessions (SBCs).

The key point of contention was whether the block of land was actively used in the Eichmann Family Trust's building, bricklaying, and paving business, as required by the active asset test.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) argued that the land next to the family home didn't meet the criteria of an active asset because it wasn't actively used in conducting the business. They believed that the land's use for storing equipment and materials was merely incidental to the main business activities and thus couldn't be considered integral to the business process.

However, the AAT disagreed with the ATO's interpretation. They ruled in favor of the taxpayer, stating that the land did qualify as an active asset, meeting the requirements of the active asset test.

The AAT emphasized that the land's use by the trust was significant and not trivial. It was used for storing materials and tools essential for operating the business, both inside sheds and outside. This usage was clearly aimed at supporting the business activities.

In their decision, the AAT highlighted that the legislative provision only required the asset to be used in the course of conducting a business, which encompasses a broad range of activities. They noted that the law didn't explicitly require the asset's use to be integral or essential to the business, as argued by the ATO.

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.