The Trustee for SBM Trust vs Federal Commissioner of Taxation

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has concluded that GST credits from pre-2009 cannot be claimed on post-2009 GST returns (or business activity statements) if they fall outside the four year time limit imposed by a legislature change in 2009.

A Straightforward Case

The Deputy President of the AAT was delighted to inform us that "the facts of this case are straightforward, and not in dispute." 

The taxpayer unfortunately didn't claim eligible input tax credits in a 2005 business activity statement (BAS).  They therefore included the amounts in a 2012 BAS upon realization of this error.

The four year time frame for GST return amendments was introduced in 2009.  The question before the AAT was whether or not the amendments are out of time, with regard had to the fact that there was no time limit in 2005 when the returns were lodged.

The Law

Section 29-10 of the GST Act provides, that if a GST return for a tax period does not take into account an input tax credit attributable to that tax period, the credit is attributable to the first period for which you give the Commissioner a return that does consider the amount.

The Decision

With the above in mind, the Deputy President had little option but to side with the Commissioner of Taxation.  The Commissioner argued that the first notification of these credits was received in 2012, therefore the period they were attributable to was in 2012 and hence the post-2009 time limit applies and the taxpayer was out of time to claim them.

All post-2009 GST returns are subject to the four year time limit (with few exceptions), therefore credits from 2005 could not be claimed on those business activity statements.  The AAT were somewhat unkind to the taxpayer, who was arguing fervently for his seven year old GST credits:

"The taxpayer's submissions cannot be sustained. In particular, the submission that clause 19 in Schedule 1 to the 2010 amending Act "can also be interpreted as applying only to acquisitions post 12 May 2009" is without merit. There is no justification for restricting the clear words of the clause in that way."

[2015] AATA 174

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2015/174.html