Chapter 3: Loss carry back

Date

Key points

  • Loss carry back allows companies to offset current period losses against previously paid taxes. It can be viewed as a limited form of loss refundability.
  • Loss carry back would support investment by reducing the tax bias against investing in riskier but worthwhile projects, particularly by small and medium sized companies. It would also act as an automatic stabiliser by providing increased cash flows to businesses during an economic downturn.
  • Loss carry back should be provided to companies and entities that are taxed like companies. Further consideration of the relative costs and benefits of carry back for other entities (such as sole traders and partnerships) is needed before recommending an extension to these entities.
  • A two year carry back period would strike the right balance between limiting the exposure of government revenues and allowing companies to access the tax value of their losses.
  • The amount of any carry back refund should be limited to the franking account balance to manage the interaction with the imputation system.
  • A quantitative cap should be applied to help manage the exposure of government revenues to economic downturns and would also target the benefits of carry back to smaller businesses.
  • Loss carry back could be implemented through a refundable tax offset rather than through amending tax assessments of prior years.
  • The greatest benefit from loss carry back would be derived by previously profitable companies that are in a temporary loss position.
  • A phased approach to implementation would reduce the costs of loss carry back over the forward estimates.

Loss carry back would support business investment

The Working Group believes that there is a case for introducing loss carry back into the Australian company tax system. This was widely accepted during consultations with stakeholders. By reducing the tax bias against riskier but worthwhile projects, loss carry back could be expected to provide benefits for businesses and the economy by supporting business investment and improving investment decisions in response to changes in the wider economy. Loss carry back has been adopted in a number of OECD countries.

The Working Group has not had sufficient time to fully explore the net benefits of loss carry back and possible offsetting saves relative to other possible reforms. Nonetheless, the Working Group considers that loss carry back is a worthwhile reform in its own right and has identified some design and implementation options that could be adopted.

Loss carry back is a form of loss refundability

Loss carry back would allow companies to use a current year loss against taxable income in previous years, resulting in a refund for all or part of the tax value of that loss to the extent of taxes paid in previous periods.

Loss carry back differs from the benchmark of full loss refundability since refunds are limited to taxes paid prior to the loss year. As such, there would be fewer refunds distributed under loss carry back and those refunds would be smaller on average compared to full refundability.

Loss carry back would reduce the effective marginal tax rate on new risky investments by providing companies with more certainty that they will receive a tax refund for any future losses. This reduces the bias against risky investments that currently exists in the company tax system and supports businesses adapting to changed economic conditions, for example, by innovating to take advantage of new opportunities or making plans for an orderly exit (for example, by settling existing debts and assisting employees to transition to new jobs). Investments would be made with a greater expectation that a business would receive tax refunds if losses are incurred in future years.

Loss carry back has been implemented in a number of OECD countries including Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. Box 3.1 outlines the carry back systems in some OECD countries.13 It is common practice within these systems to limit the carry back period, normally from one to three years, such that businesses can only use current period losses against taxes paid over that period.

Loss carry back acts as an automatic stabiliser

Loss carry back allows businesses to access the tax value of their losses by providing tax refunds for loss periods. This has an automatic stabiliser effect by increasing cash flows for previously profitable companies during economic downturns when they are most needed, without the need for direct government intervention. Businesses that are credit constrained can use these increased cash flows to make new investments and adapt and recover more quickly from a loss position. This increased investment and activity helps to reduce the magnitude and longevity of economic downturns.

This automatic stabiliser effect of loss carry back makes government revenues more volatile. Less revenue would be collected during economic downturns as more companies incur losses, and more tax refunds are provided to those loss making companies. On the other hand, company tax collections would recover more quickly during economic upturns due to the smaller stock of carry forward losses being utilised as companies return to profit.

The Working Group considers this automatic stabiliser effect to have some benefits over ad-hoc government interventions in response to changes in economic conditions as the benefits of loss carry back are both timely and broad in scope. However, not all companies will benefit from loss carry back and not all companies will be able to access the full benefit of the tax value of their losses, for example, if the tax value of losses is greater than previous taxes paid. To the extent that loss utilisation is limited in this way, and by other design features that are discussed later in this chapter, the automatic stabiliser effect will not be as strong as under full loss refundability.

Table 3.1 International loss carry back systems

Country Loss carry back
Australia No
Austria No
Canada 3 Years (permitted for unincorporated businesses)
Denmark No
France 1 year (recently reduced from 3 years and subject to a €1 million annual cap)
Germany 1 year (Extends to sole traders and partnerships, capped at €0.5 million per year)
Ireland 1 year (permitted for unincorporated businesses, 3 years if business ceases trading)
Italy No
Mexico No
Netherlands 1 year (3 years for 2009, 2010 and 2011 losses, capped at €10 million per year)
New Zealand No
Norway No (temporarily introduced for 2 years if business ceases trading or for losses in 2008 and 2009, capped at NOK 20 million per year)
Spain No
Sweden No
Switzerland No (one canton does allow 1 year carry in respect of local taxes)
United Kingdom 1 year (permitted for unincorporated businesses, 3 years if business ceases trading and temporarily extended to 3 years for losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 but subject to a £50,000 cap)
United States 2 years (permitted for unincorporated businesses up to 5 years for 2008-09 losses)

Source: Table adapted from OECD, Corporate Loss Utilisation through Aggressive Tax Planning (2011), p.34.

The Working Group has considered making loss carry back available to all businesses

Most businesses face a risk of making losses from time to time, regardless of their organisational structure. Whilst the Working Group has given serious consideration to how loss carry back might be made available to all business structures, it has focussed its attention initially on companies and entities that are taxed like companies. As mentioned in Chapter 1, company structures tend to be the organisational form preferred for risky investments and typically face more constraints on their ability to realise the value of their tax losses than businesses operating through alternative structures (except for trusts). For other business entities, the additional administrative costs of introducing loss carry back could outweigh the benefits that loss carry back provides.

Companies

Companies already collect the information needed to administer loss carry back. As a result the compliance costs of applying loss carry back to companies would not be expected to be significantly different from current costs. It is not expected that the increase in compliance costs from the introduction of loss carry back would significantly offset the benefits of increased loss utilisation.

Trusts

A number of stakeholders raised the idea that it would be beneficial to extend loss carry back to trusts. However, this would be difficult. The Working Group acknowledges that applying loss carry back rules to trusts that are taxed as companies (public trading trusts and corporate limited partnerships) would be similar to applying loss carry back to companies as they must also lodge a company tax return and collect the appropriate information. For example, loss carry back would be available only in cases where trusts are taxed like a company over the loss year and the carry back period. This is not likely to provide large benefits as there are only a small proportion of trusts that are taxed as companies.

The Working Group believes that extending loss carry back to trusts more broadly would not be feasible. Trusts are generally not subject to tax, which means that tax losses for trusts would need to be offset against taxes paid at the beneficiary level. A trustee is unlikely to be aware of a beneficiary's marginal tax rate (other than in some closely held trust scenarios) and they may not have detailed knowledge of a beneficiary's overall tax profile, including whether the beneficiary actually paid income tax on any trust distributions. Due to other income sources and deductions, some beneficiaries may fall below the tax free threshold and would thus not pay any tax on trust distributions or pay tax at a lower average tax rate than their marginal tax rate.

A further complication arises for discretionary trusts, as there are no strict rules around distributions to beneficiaries. As a result, benefits from loss carry back may not flow through to those beneficiaries that paid the tax on previous distributions without complicated and impractical tracing rules.

Sole traders and partnerships

Loss carry back could potentially be applied to sole traders and partnerships by allowing them to carry back business losses against taxes paid in respect of taxable income earned in carrying on a business. Some stakeholders expressed their support for such an extension to loss carry back.

However, in addition to imposing additional compliance costs, loss carry back would place additional pressure on the boundary issues that currently exist in the tax law between income and deductions associated with business and personal activities. Rules for sole traders would be required to allocate income and expenses between the business and other investments, for example a share portfolio or property. This would be less of an issue for partnerships that must distinguish between partnership and personal income and expenses.

Partnerships are not taxed in their own right — any taxable income or loss flows through to the partners. To the extent that corporate partners receive taxable income or a distribution of a partnership loss in any income year, the rules applying to companies (including the recommendations in this paper) would apply to that corporate taxpayer. Sole traders and individual partners in partnerships arguably have a greater degree of flexibility in utilising losses associated with their business activities than companies. For example, losses incurred by sole traders and individual partners in partnerships can already be offset by income earned through other activities and other available tax offsets. So the case for loss carry back is arguably less compelling in respect of these taxpayers.

An additional challenge of applying loss carry back to sole traders and individual partners in partnerships is that they face a progressive tax rate schedule and multiple marginal tax rates. This would complicate the calculation of available carry back refunds for businesses as well as decisions around when to utilise the loss carry back system.

Given the difficulties involved in applying loss carry back to trusts generally and the limited benefits for sole traders and partnerships with individual partners relative to the additional costs, the Working Group has concluded that loss carry back should initially be limited to companies and trusts that are taxed as companies. Extending loss carry back to other business structures could be considered further in the future.

The Working Group has considered the possible design of loss carry back

A two year carry back period strikes the right balance

As mentioned above, it is common practice internationally to limit the carry back period, generally to between one and three years. This reduces the administrative costs of storing, amending and auditing tax returns from previous periods and also places a limit on the impact of loss carry back on government revenues.

There are trade-offs with choosing the length of the carry back period. A shorter carry back period limits the Government's exposure to the revenue effects of loss utilisation as refunds would not be as large during economic downturns. However, it would also limit the benefits that companies can derive from loss carry back during loss periods, and limit the automatic stabiliser effect. A shorter carry back period means that companies experiencing large losses (relative to taxes paid over the carry back period) or longer periods of loss may not be able to access the full tax value of current period losses. Longer carry back periods would have a larger effect on the taxes paid by some companies and would allow companies greater access to the tax value of their losses. Compared to the carry back periods chosen in international carry back systems (between one and three years), a carry back period of two years strikes a balance between allowing companies to offset current period losses and limiting the exposure of government revenues.

Loss carry back periods can also be amended to reflect the economic environment. For example, after the global financial crisis, in an effort to stimulate business activity the United States and the United Kingdom both extended the allowable time period over which losses could be carried back. This increased access to losses and provided assistance to struggling businesses. In some cases, governments have extended the carry back period for businesses that incur losses in shutting down. This allows companies to access the tax value of more of their losses, particularly when this involves multiple loss periods. Providing a refund to closing companies can be seen as providing a cash flow benefit that will flow on to future consumption or investment in the economy.

The Working Group considered the potential merits of a longer initial carry back period of three years to provide further assistance for businesses affected by the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). However, the Working Group believes that this assistance would not be necessary or useful as affected companies are likely to have already made adjustments in response to the effects of the GFC. For loss carry back to be useful to companies affected by the GFC, it would need to apply retrospectively to losses already incurred or to allow new losses to be carried back to pre-GFC period profits. The Working Group considers it would be more beneficial to the economy to apply loss carry back with the view to improving future investment and business decisions.

Any refunds should be limited to a company's franking account balance

In its interim report the Working Group suggested that any refunds provided under loss carry back might be limited by the franking account balance due to interactions with the imputation system, as restated below. This position was generally endorsed by stakeholders.

Companies can attach franking credits to dividends for the taxes already paid at the company level. Foreign shareholders can use these credits against withholding taxes on franked dividends. All related transactions (for example, paying taxes, receiving tax refunds and distributing franking credits) are recorded in franking accounts. When a franking account has a negative balance at the end of a period, companies must pay a franking deficit tax (FDT) to bring the account balance to zero.

Because of the FDT, the benefits of loss carry back are automatically limited to the positive balance of the franking account. While this result limits the impact on Government revenue, it also creates administrative costs by creating ‘churn' in the tax system, whereby companies are paid refunds and then must pay back taxes to the extent that those refunds result in a negative franking account balance.

The timing of FDT would also be relevant for this interaction effect. A company's liability for FDT is worked out at the end of the income year but refunds paid within three months after the end of the income year are included in the calculation of FDT for that year. So a loss carry back refund paid within three months after the end of the income year may result in a FDT liability. Companies that receive a loss carry back refund more than three months after the start of the income year would have the rest of the current income year to make up their franking account balance (and thereby avoid FDT for that year).

To deal with this issue the Working Group considers that loss carry back refunds should be limited so that they do not result in a negative franking account balance. This would reduce the churn caused by the interaction between loss carry back and the imputation system as well as the potential for inequitable outcomes between taxpayers depending on when they are paid their refund.

The Working Group recognises that this proposal may induce some companies to reduce their dividend pay-out rate to increase the reserve of franking credits to support the carry back of losses.

A quantitative cap provides a flexible approach to targeting

A quantitative cap limits the amount of losses that taxpayers can carry back against taxes paid in previous periods. Quantitative caps have been used, for example, in the carry back systems of Germany and the United Kingdom.14 A quantitative cap is also easy to adapt when needed to meet policy objectives. For example, the cap might be increased during an economic downturn to stimulate investment, although frequent changes to the cap could create uncertainty.

A quantitative cap can target the benefits of loss carry back to small and medium sized companies struggling with the two speed economy, without relying on legislative definitions around company size and type.

Targeting companies using the existing definition of a small business entity (that is, a taxpayer who carries on a business and has aggregated turnover of less than $2 million per year)15 would limit loss carry back to the 760,000 small business entities that are incorporated.16 Moreover, expanding the application of loss carry back using legal definitions of small and medium sized companies would add further complexity to the tax law and would still create incentives for restructuring as companies attempt to benefit from the loss carry back rules. A quantitative cap would allow all companies to claim carry back while still targeting the benefits to smaller and struggling companies.

Applying a quantitative cap would reduce the overall cost of providing loss carry back and reduce the Government's exposure to large losses incurred by individual businesses, while still providing benefits to all eligible companies.

The Working Group notes that limiting the overall cost of loss carry back also limits the effectiveness of loss carry back compared to the economic benchmark of full loss refundability. A larger cap increases the potential refunds that can be paid to companies in respect of loss periods but also increases the exposure of government revenues to economic downturns. Choosing a cap level is a policy choice that will be, in part, dependent on economic and fiscal conditions.

The Working Group envisages that a cap would apply to the tax loss that can be carried back from a particular year, not the amount of taxable income in a previous year that can be offset. For example consider a two year loss carry back with a cap of $1 million and a company that had paid tax on $2 million of taxable income in year one and incurred tax losses in years two and three. The losses in years two and three could be carried back against the tax income in year one, up to $1 million in each of the two years. Any losses that cannot be carried back due to the cap (or other limit) would be carried forward.

The Working Group analysed possible reform options in light of a $1 million cap (resulting in a $290,000 maximum carry back refund from 2013-14 onwards, assuming a 29 per cent tax rate) and also discussed this cap during consultations with stakeholders. While there was agreement that this cap was appropriate, there were some calls for a larger cap. With this in mind the Working Group supports a quantitative cap of not less than $1 million but further analysis could be conducted on the benefits of a higher cap, for example the effect of a $5 million cap on both the cost and impact of loss carry back. The higher $5 million cap was particularly supported by stakeholders in the tourism sector, which is currently facing difficult trading conditions due to the impact of the high value of the Australian dollar. For example, companies undertaking investments such as hotel or resort refurbishments may be influenced by carry back with a $5 million cap.

Loss carry back does not need to involve amended assessments

Conceptually, loss carry back could require a taxpayer's previous tax assessments to be amended. When a company claims a tax refund for a current period loss, previous tax assessments may be reopened and altered to reflect the reversal of tax paid in those periods due to carry back. This delivery mechanism could become administratively costly as old tax returns must be maintained and updated as loss carry back is utilised.

Additional compliance costs would arise if amendments are made to previous tax returns. A taxpayer's assessment for the year in which they incurred a loss (and received a carry back refund) may subsequently be amended such that they were not entitled to loss carry back or were entitled to a greater refund than was provided. Correcting this would require reopening and amending the tax return from the loss year as well as the tax returns over the carry back period.

Further problems may also arise if some of the tax returns that need to be amended fall beyond the Commissioner's amendment period. To deal with this problem, additional income tax could be imposed on the taxpayer to claw back incorrect refunds or additional refunds could be provided if taxpayers are found to have been entitled to a greater refund. This would eliminate the need to reopen and amend previous tax returns in light of an audit by the Commissioner, significantly reducing the administrative costs of reversing incorrect refunds.

However, amending previous assessments is not the only delivery mechanism available for providing loss carry back. A similar result could be achieved through the use of a refundable tax offset. For example, a company could become entitled to a refundable tax offset in a year it has negative taxable income and has paid income tax in at least one year over the carry back period. So, in the case where carry back is limited to a company's franking account balance and a quantitative cap, the amount of the refundable tax offset would be the lesser of:

  • the tax value of the company's tax loss for the current year;
  • the company's franking account balance;
  • the tax value of any quantitative cap imposed on loss carry back; and
  • the amount of income tax paid over the carry back period.

The relevant proportion of the company's tax loss would then be converted to a refundable tax offset and, subject to any outstanding tax liabilities, paid to the company. To substantiate a claim for the refundable tax offset, a company would need to provide details of previous claims (to ensure there is no double dipping). The refundable tax offsets would be counted as a debit in the franking account.

This delivery mechanism is likely to be administratively easier as it would remove the need to reopen previous tax returns and reduce the risk of complications due to the Commissioner's allowable amendment period. However, previous tax returns would still need to be maintained and accessed to calculate the refundable tax offset that is available to taxpayers. Any review of the company's tax affairs which lead the Commissioner to conclude that the company was not entitled to a refundable tax offset in a previous year could lead to the offset being disallowed.

From a tax administration perspective, we should also note that in the year in which a refund occurred, a franking debit would arise to the extent of the refund provided (this means that the franking credits are not then also available to frank dividends which would give a double-dip on those franking credits).

Loss carry back will benefit businesses experiencing a temporary shock

Loss carry back would be more beneficial to some companies than others. It will not directly assist companies that have not paid tax before (for example, some start-up companies) or those that do not have losses to carry back (for example, constantly profitable companies). However, to the extent that such companies expect to be profitable in general, loss carry back would still be beneficial in relieving the tax bias against investing in riskier projects. Consolidated groups are not expected to be large beneficiaries of loss carry back as they are able to offset losses of one subsidiary with the profits of another subsidiary under the single entity rule.

The worked examples set up earlier can illustrate the situations in which companies will gain the greatest benefit from loss carry back. It should be noted that, for simplicity and illustrative purposes, the examples show carry back refunds being paid in the year that the associated losses are made. In reality, refunds paid in respect of a loss year will be received in the next income year after company tax returns have been filed and processed. The worked examples assume a company tax rate of 29 per cent (30 per cent in 2012-13) and a two year carry back period, limited to a quantitative cap of $1 million and the franking account.

Worked example 1: A start-up company

The start-up company would not benefit from a loss carry back system. Any losses made by the start-up will not be able to be offset against previously paid taxes because the company has not previously paid any taxes. The start-up company would need to rely on the existing carry forward rules to access the tax value of its losses.

Worked example 2: A company facing a temporary shock

Bread Pty Ltd (Bread) would benefit from loss carry back as it has previously paid taxes. Note that Bread has a franking account balance of $1 million at the end of 2015-16.

Because of the impact of the floods, Bread is in its first tax loss position in 2015-16, so that Bread has;

  • a loss with the tax value of $174,000 ($600,000 x 29%)
  • a franking account balance of $1 million
  • paid $928,000 in taxes over the carry back period, and
  • a quantitative cap with the tax value of $290,000 ($1 million x 29%)

As the tax value of Bread's loss is lower than the quantitative cap and the franking account balance, Bread will be able to carry back the full $600,000 against previously paid taxes. Bread will receive a refund of $174,000 (the tax value of the $600,000 loss). In 2016-17 Bread is no longer in a loss position and returns to paying taxes.

Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Assessable income $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,800,000 $2,500,000
Expenses — excluding depreciation ($200,000) ($200,000) ($200,000) ($1,000,000) ($500,000) ($200,000)
Deductions — depreciation ($200,000) ($200,000) ($200,000) ($800,000) ($800,000) ($800,000)
Deductions — losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Taxable income $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 ($600,000) $500,000 $1,500,000
Tax payable $480,000 $464,000 $464,000 $0 $145,000 $435,000
Loss carried back $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0
Carry back refund $0 $0 $0 $174,000 $0 $0
Total carry forward losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Worked example 3: A company facing a sustained shock

Similarly, XYZ Pty Ltd (XYZ) would benefit from the loss carry back, but would not be able to utilise the full value of its tax losses through the carry back system. XYZ has a franking account balance of $1 million at the end of 2015-16.

Due to the strong Australian dollar and technical advancements made by competitors, XYZ is in its first tax loss position in 2015-16 so that XYZ has;

  • a loss with the tax value of $145,000 ($500,000 x 29%)
  • a franking account balance of $1 million
  • paid $580,000 in taxes over the carry back period, and
  • a quantitative cap with the tax value of $290,000 ($1 million x 29%)

As the tax value of XYZ's loss is lower than the quantitative cap and th e franking account balance, XYZ will be able to carry back the full $500,000 against previously paid taxes. XYZ's loss for 2015-16 will be carried back against tax paid in 2013-14 (the earliest year). As the tax paid in 2013-14 exceeds the tax value of the loss, there is no need to access the tax paid in 2014-15. XYZ will receive a loss carry back refund of $145,000 for its loss in 2015-16. This reduces the franking account balance to $855,000 ($1 million — $145,000).

XYZ then experiences a second year of loss in 2016-17 with a tax value of $580,000 ($2 million x 29%), where the franking account balance is $855,000, the tax paid over the carry back period is $145,000 and the quantitative cap is still $290,000. Here the tax value of the loss is limited by both the quantitative cap and the amount of tax paid in 2014-15 (as no tax was paid in 2015-16). However, the amount of tax paid in 2014-15 is lower than the quantitative cap and as a result XYZ can only claim a refund of $145,000 for its loss in 2016-17. The remaining $1.5 million of the loss in 2016-17 is carried forward to 2017-18.

Loss carry back provides an income injection to XYZ Pty Ltd when it is feeling the impact of the strong Australian dollar and the technical advancements made by competitors. However, the longer XYZ stays in a loss position the less benefit loss carry back would provide.

Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Assessable income $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Expenses — excluding depreciation ($500,000) ($500,000) ($500,000) ($500,000) ($2,500,000) ($500,000)
Deductions — depreciation ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) $0 ($100,000)
Deduction for carry forward losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($400,000)
Taxable income $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 ($500,000) ($2,000,000) $0
Tax payable $450,000 $435,000 $145,000 $0 $0 $0
Loss carried back $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0
Carry back refund $0 $0 $0 $145,000 $145,000 $0
Total carry forward losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,100,000

Worked example 4: A company investing to upgrade its product line

Especial Pty Ltd (Especial) would benefit from the loss carry back due to the losses made during its refurbishments, but would not be able to utilise the full value of its tax losses. Note that Especial has a franking account balance of $5 million at the end of 2014-15.

Due to the reduced income and increased deductions involved with refurbishments, Especial is in its first tax loss position in 2014-15 so that Especial has;

  • a loss with the tax value of $1.45 million ($5 million x 29%)
  • a franking account balance of $5 million
  • paid $3,397,500 in taxes over the carry back period, and
  • a quantitative cap with the tax value of $290,000 ($1 million x 29%)

As the tax value of Especial's loss is higher than the quantitative cap, Especial will only be able to carry back $1 million against previously paid taxes. Especial's loss for 2014-15 will be carried back against tax paid in 2012-13 (the earliest year) because this exceeds the tax value of the cap so there is no need to access the tax paid in 2014-15. Especial will receive a loss carry back refund of $290,000 for its loss in 2014-15. This reduces the franking account balance to $4.71 million ($5 million — $290,000). The remaining loss of $4 million is carried forward to 2015-16.

Especial then experiences another loss in 2015-16 with a tax value of $1.15 million, where the franking account balance is $4.71 million, the tax paid over the carry back period is $1.52 million and the quantitative cap is still $290,000. Again, the carry back refund is limited by the quantitative cap so Especial can only claim a refund of $290,000 for its loss in 2015-16. The remaining $6.95 million of the loss in 2015-16 is added to the loss carry forward stock and carried forward to 2016-17.

Especial suffers a third year of loss in 2016-17 but cannot carry the tax value back as there were no taxes paid over the previous two years. The full value of the loss is added to the loss stock and carried forward to 2017-18.

In 2017-18 Especial returns to profit and is able to use its carry forward stock to reduce its taxable income.

Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Assessable income $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $12,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000
Expenses — excluding depreciation ($18,000,000) ($19,000,000) ($16,100,000) ($18,000,000) ($19,000,000) ($18,000,000)
Deductions — depreciation ($750,000) ($750,000) ($900,000) ($950,000) ($1,800,000) ($1,800,000)
Deductions — losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($7,750,000)
Taxable income $6,250,000 $5,250,000 ($5,000,000) ($3,950,000) ($800,000) $2,450,000
Tax payable $1,875,000 $1,522,500 $0 $0 $0 $710,500
Loss carried back $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0
Carry back refund $0 $0 $290,000 $290,000 $0 $0
Total carry forward losses $0 $0 $4,000,000 $6,950,000 $7,750,000 $0

Worked example 4 ($5 million cap): A company investing to upgrade its product line

Under a $5 million cap (which has a tax value of $1.45 million), Especial would be able to claim larger refunds during its loss periods but these would still limited by the quantitative cap in some periods.

In 2014-15, Especial suffers a loss with a tax value of $1.45 million ($5 million x 29%). The refund in this period is not limited by the cap and as a result Especial can claim a carry back refund of $1.45 million for its loss in 2014-15.

Especial makes another loss in 2015-16 with a tax value of $1.15 million. As this is lower than the cap and the taxes paid in 2013-14 (no taxes were paid in 2014-15), Especial is able to claim a carry back refund for the full amount. As under t he $1 million cap, Especial cannot claim a carry back refund for its loss in 2016-17 because it did not pay any taxes over the carry back period. The full value of the loss is added to the loss stock and carried forward to 2016-17.

In 2017-18 Especial returns to profit and is able to utilise its carry forward losses to reduce its taxable income. Here we see that, due to the increased quantitative cap, Especial has increased cash-flows as it undertakes refurbishments (through larger carry back refunds) but also pays more tax when it returns to profit as a smaller stock of losses is carried forward.

Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Assessable income $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $12,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000
Expenses — excluding depreciation ($18,000,000) ($19,000,000) ($16,100,000) ($18,000,000) ($19,000,000) ($18,000,000)
Deductions — depreciation ($750,000) ($750,000) ($900,000) ($950,000) ($1,800,000) ($1,800,000)
Deductions — losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($800,000)
Taxable income $6,250,000 $5,250,000 ($5,000,000) ($3,950,000) ($800,000) $9,400,000
Tax payable $1,875,000 $1,522,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,726,000
Loss carried back $0 $0 $5,000,000 $3,950,000 $0 $0
Carry back refund $0 $0 $1,450,000 $1,145,500 $0 $0
Total carry forward losses $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $0

Worked example 5: A terminal company

Similar to the start-up company, the terminal company would not benefit from loss carry back because it has not previously paid taxes.

Worked example 6: A consolidated group

Head Co would not benefit from loss carry back because Consol is not in an overall tax loss position. The losses from Hardware Co can already be deducted from the positive assessable income of Grocery Co and Mining Co. As such Head Co has no need to utilise loss carry back.

The worked examples show that otherwise profitable companies that experience a short term loss will benefit the most from loss carry back. This benefit will decrease the longer the company stays in a loss position.

Based on historical data, the industries (as defined by the Australian Tax Office's (ATO) industry codes) that would be expected to be the largest beneficiaries of a two year carry back, limited to company franking account balances and subject to a $1 million cap, include: construction (15 per cent of the total benefit), finance and insurance (15 per cent), manufacturing (15 per cent), professional scientific and technical services (10 per cent) and wholesale trade (10 per cent) and 35 per cent distributed among the remaining 16 main industry categories.

In terms of company size (according to the entity size definitions used by the ATO)17, the distribution of benefits would be expected to accrue mostly to micro companies (40 per cent), then small companies (25 per cent), medium companies (25 per cent), large companies (five per cent) and then very large companies (five per cent).

Treasury's analysis of loss carry back is based on historical company tax return data from 2003-04 to 2009-10. The distributional analysis represents the industries that would have benefited if loss carry back had been in place from 2003-04 but is nonetheless indicative of which industries are the most likely to benefit if carry back were introduced in the future.

Prospective implementation would reduce the costs

It would be preferable to introduce loss carry back as soon as possible to assist businesses that experience losses as a result of changes in the economic environment. The Working Group is also mindful that the Government may be attracted to announcing reforms to the tax treatment of losses in the 2012-13 Budget, with a 1 July 2012 start date, to boost business confidence in sectors not favoured by current economic conditions.

The Working Group considered the introduction of a two-year loss carry back from 2012-13 (that is, in respect to tax losses incurred for that year). The cost of loss carry back over the forward estimates on this basis would be around $800 million (see table 3.2 below).

The Working Group also considered phasing in loss carry back from the 2013-14 year with an initial carry back period of one year. That is, any loss incurred in 2013-14 could be carried back against taxable income from 2012-13. From that point onwards, the carry back period would be two years. This approach substantially cuts the cost of introducing loss carry back over the forward estimates and hence the quantum of savings that need to be found. This completely prospective approach to loss carry back is also arguably more consistent with our mandate to relieve the tax burden on only new investment.

Regardless of the introduction date, Treasury's costing of the annual cost of loss carry back (as recommended by the Working Group) indicates that the cost at maturity would be in the order of $300 million per annum.

The Working Group has been informed that it may be feasible to have legislation in place by the end of the 2012-13 income year (including consultation on draft legislation), but understands that this would be subject to the Government's legislative drafting priorities. Introducing a prospective loss carry back would ease the pressure on completing other drafting by the end of 2012-13.

Table 3.2: Estimated cost of loss carry back

Estimated costs ($ millions)
  2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Phase in of loss carry back from 2013-14 with an initial carry back period of one year, an ongoing carry back period of two years and a $1 million cap 0 0 0 150 300 450
Loss carry back commencing in 2012-13 with two year carry back period with a $1 million cap 0 0 250 250 300 800

Conclusion

The Working Group considers it worthwhile for the Government to pursue loss carry back as a form of increased loss utilisation that provides many of the benefits of full loss refundability.

To manage the trade-off between targeting reforms to small and medium sized businesses and identifying required offsetting savings while still decreasing the bias against risk taking by companies, a two year carry back could be provided, limited by a quantitative cap of not less than $1 million and the franking account balance.

Consideration should be given to implementing loss carry back through a refundable tax offset to reduce the legislative, administrative and monitoring costs of the reforms.

Recommendation

Recommendation 2:

The Working Group considers that loss carry back would be a worthwhile reform in the near term and could be implemented consistent with a model that:

  • is limited to companies;
  • provides a two-year loss carry back period on an ongoing basis;
  • limits the amount of losses that can be carried back by applying a cap of not less than $1 million;
  • limits the amount of refunds to a company's franking account balance; and
  • is phased in from 2013-14 with an initial one year carry back period.

13 Appendix D contains a more detailed outline of the treatment of losses in OECD countries.

14 The United Kingdom only introduced a temporary quantitative cap in respect of the extension of loss carry back during the global financial crisis.

15 Section 328-110 of the ITAA 1997. The AFTS Review recommended that the Government consider increasing the turnover threshold to $5 million.

16 Only 28 per cent of all small business entities are incorporated (760,000 out of 2.7 million).

17 Micro entities have annual turnover of $1 or more but less than $2 million. Small entities have annual turnover of $2 million or more but less than $10 million. Medium entities have annual turnover of $10 million or more but less than $100 million. Large entities have turnover of $100 million or more but less than $250 million. Very large entities have annual turnover of $250 million or more.