PDA

View Full Version : Depreciation on Roller Shutters


Rob Williams
10-04-2008, 03:24 PM
From what I can see in the ATO doco, it looks like, at best, I can only claim 2.5% for Roller Shutters. Is that right?

depreciator
10-04-2008, 03:39 PM
Yeah, they're pretty definite about that, Rob. Their logic would be that the shutters will last a long time with reasonable use. If they are damaged before their Effective Life is up, it's a repair issue.
If they are motorised, you'd be able to depreciate the motor more quickly. It's the same with garage doors.
Scott

TAG
10-04-2008, 04:23 PM
As the title says, are they part of the special building allowance as well i.e 2.5%

depreciator
10-04-2008, 04:37 PM
Sadly, yes.

Rob G.
10-04-2008, 08:20 PM
Its not the life expectancy, it is the fact that shutters are mere fixtures.

Fixtures are not depreciating assets if permanently attached to the building, i.e. they become part of the "settings" as per the ICI case.

You could try putting electric motors on the shutters.

This makes it machinery, which is always depreciable even when permanently attached to a building.

Hey, even make it controlled from a PC so that is depreciable as well ?

But note that the fixed wiring/conduit is settings.

(You can tell I don't have enough to think about at the moment).

Cheers,

Rob

depreciator
11-04-2008, 09:15 AM
The ATO would deem the motor an Asset and therefore depreciable - 10 year Effective Life from memory. But the shutters themselves would still be 'building' i.e. 2.5%.
As I said, it's the same with auro garage doors. The door itself is regarded as 'building' i.e. 2.5%, but the motor is depreciable more quickly.
I think the ATO Rental Properties guide sets this out pretty clearly in a table. You can download it from the ATO site. There is lots of stuff in there about rental properties and it's easy to read - unlike some of their stuff.

Rob G.
11-04-2008, 03:03 PM
Only tribunals and the Commissioner seem to require separation of the motor from other parts.

Case law appears to disagree - moving components attached to and operated by the motor were incorrectly classed as settings in Carpentaria Transport Pty. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 90 ATC 4590. This involved an automatic roller door.

How far do you go in separating "moving parts" into machinery & settings ?

If the shutters are impossible to operate without the motor then it is more clear.

Cheers,

Rob

depreciator
14-04-2008, 09:50 AM
Yep, as we all know there are plenty of grey areas. I the intial question related to someone bunging some window shutters on an IP. There isn't much grey in that.
And I agree with what you wrote earlier, Rob, that you may not have enough to think about right now.
Scott