The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) has held that two taxpayers were not carrying on a business of providing services to a company (which they owned) and consequently were not entitled to various deductions.
The taxpayers had claimed those deductions on the basis that they were carrying on a business of providing agistment and full care animal husbandry and veterinary services to their company. The AAT concluded that, on balance, the agistment arrangements did not constitute a ‘business’.
The AAT noted in this regard that there was a degree of systematic, business-like behaviour. However, the AAT was of the view that the absence of a profit-making purpose, the uncommercial nature of the transactions and similar considerations nevertheless led to the conclusion that a business was not being carried on.