The Federal Court of Australia has handed down a decision dealing with the question of whether or not a forfeited

deposit lodged in connection with the sale of real estate is liable for GST. The case is Reliance Carpet Co Pty Limited

v Commissioner of Taxation.

Facts

Simplified slightly, the facts were relatively straight forward. Early in 2002 the Vendor (Reliance Carpet Co Pty

Limited) exchanged a contract with 699 Burke Road Pty Limited (the Purchaser involved) for the sale of a property

at 699 Burke Road, Camberwell, Victoria for the sum of $2,975,000.00 plus GST. A deposit of $297,500.00 was

paid.

The settlement date was originally to be 10 January 2003 but the Purchaser exercised a right to extend the

settlement by 6 months to 10 July 2003. When the Purchaser did not settle on that date, the Vendor issued a 14

day rescission notice but the Purchaser still failed to complete. On 26 July 2003, the contract was rescinded and

the deposit was forfeited to the Applicant.

The Commissioner of Taxation then assessed the Vendor/Applicant as being liable to pay GST in respect of the

forfeited deposit. The Applicant objected to the assessment and the Commissioner disallowed the objection. The

Administrative Appeals Tribunal then approved the Commissioner’s decision.

Legislation

Under Section 7 – 1 of the A New Tax System (Goods & Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act) GST is payable on a

taxable supply. “Supply” is very broadly defined and in appropriate circumstances can certainly include the sale

of real estate. Under Section 9 – 5 one of the conditions for a “taxable supply” is the need to have a supply for

consideration.

Division 29 of the GST Act provides rules for the attribution of the GST payable on a taxable supply to a tax

period. Under the general rule in section 29 – 5, the supplier becomes liable to pay GST on the earlier of the

supplier receiving any of the consideration for the taxable supply and the supplier issuing an invoice relating to

the supply.

Division 99 of the GST Act provides special rules for dealing with deposits:

“99 – 5 Giving a deposit as security does not constitute consideration

1. A deposit held as security for the performance of an obligation is not treated as consideration for a supply,

unless the deposit

GST on Forfeited Deposits

by Paul Anderson | August 2007

1 TURKSLEGAL

Area of Expertise | Business and Property

TURKALERT

(a) is forfeited because of a failure to perform the obligation: or

(b) is applied as all or part of the consideration for a supply.

2. This section has effect despite section 9 – 15 (which is about consideration).

99 – 10 Attributing the GST relating to deposits that are forfeited etc.

1. The GST payable by you on a taxable supply for which the consideration is a deposit that was held as

security for the performance of an obligation is attributable to the tax period during which the deposit:

(a) is forfeited because of a failure to perform the obligation: or

(b) is applied as all or part of the consideration for a supply.

2. This section has effect despite section 29 – 5 (which is about attributing GST for taxable supplies).”

Explanatory Memorandum

The Court comprising Heerey, Stone and Edmonds, JJ also referred to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill which

became the GST Act. The Explanatory Memorandum set out that the legislative purpose was to subject to GST only

those forfeited deposits which related to a transaction that would have been a taxable supply if the contract had

been completed. In this case, the sale, if completed, was subject to GST and, therefore, the Commissioner argued

that the Explanatory Memorandum supported the submission that the forfeited deposit should be liable for GST.

However, the Court posed the question: “does the language of Section 99 – 5 permit a construction which

accommodates that result?” The Court’s answer was “no” with the result that the forfeited deposit was not liable

for GST.

Analysis

The Court accepted the Applicant’s primary submission that on completion of the contract for sale there was a

single “supply” within the meaning of Section 9 – 10 of the GST Act, namely the supply of the real property. Once

the contract was terminated, “the supply for which the forfeited deposit can then be treated as consideration is not

apparent”. In fact, no supply could be identified with the result that the forfeited deposit was not liable to GST.

The Court rejected submissions by the Commissioner that there was a supply of the Applicant’s rights and/or

obligations under the contract prior to its rescission (“interim obligations”) or a supply of the Applicant’s rights

and/or obligations arising from the rescission of the contract (“rescission supplies”).

The Commissioner’s main submission was that Division 99 of the GST Act clearly intended that forfeited deposits

be treated as consideration for a supply and in effect the Division itself deemed that there was a taxable supply.

The Court’s response was that the language of the Section was not clear enough to achieve the result claimed. The

2 TURKSLEGAL TURKALERT

Melbourne | Level 10 (North Tower) 459 Collins Street , Melbourne, VIC 3000 | T: 03 8600 5000 | F: 03 8600 5099

Sydney | Level 29, Angel Place, 123 Pitt Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 | T: 02 8257 5700 | F: 02 9239 0922

Business & Property | Commercial Disputes | Insurance & Financial Services

Workers Compensation | Workplace Relations

www.turkslegal.com.au

Court summed up its decision in the following words:

“In conclusion then, we are unable to identify a supply upon the rescission of the contract for sale for which

payment of the forfeited deposit may be treated as consideration, nor do we think s 99 – 5 operates so as to deem

there to be a supply in such circumstances….”

The result was that the appeal was allowed with costs.

Comment

There can be little doubt that the decision would have come as a major surprise to the Commissioner. Although

the amount of money involved is unlikely to be significant because few deposits are forfeited, the Commissioner

may well take the view that there is a matter of principle involved. It will be interesting to see whether an appeal

is lodged to the High Court or whether legislation is introduced to amend Section 99 – 5 to ensure that a forfeited

deposit is liable for GST in circumstances where the completed transaction would have been liable for GST.

For more information, please contact:

This TurkAler t i s current at i ts date of publ icat ion. Whi le ever y care has been tak en in the preparat ion of this Turk Aler t i t does not const i tute legal advice and should not be re l ied upon for this purpose. Speci f ic legal advice should be sought on par t icular matters . TurksLegal does not accept responsibi l i t y for any errors in or omiss ions f rom this TurkAler t . This TurkAler t i s copyr ight and no par t may be reproduced in any form without the permiss ion of TurksLegal . For any enquir ies, p lease contac t the author of th is TurkAler t .

Paul AndersonPartnerT: 02 8257 5742paul.anderson@turkslegal.com.au