Blog Layout

Novated lease arrangements: How to reduce your tax liability

Jun 02, 2021

A Novated Lease Arrangement is a popular way that employers can reward and incentivise employees. Under the right circumstances, employees can reduce their personal tax liability under a salary sacrifice arrangement involving a novated lease.


Under a Novated Lease Arrangement, the employer takes over all or part of the lessee's rights and obligations under the lease of the employee's car. This transfer of rights and obligations is agreed to in a deed of novation between the employer, the finance company and the employee (lessee). The lease obligation typically reverts to the employee upon cessation of their employment.

 

Under a novated lease, apart from paying for the car lease repayments, the employer would usually pay for the car's running costs, such a fuel, maintenance, registration and car insurance.

People sitting around a table outdoors with a timber home and bush in the background

How is FBT involved?


A car fringe benefit arises to the employer under a full novated lease arrangement. The employer is required to determine any FBT liability using the statutory formula method as the default, or alternatively elect to use the log book method.

 

As FBT is generally borne in the end, via adjustments in a salary package, by the employee, FBT can be reduced by the employee making after-tax contributions towards the running costs. This is referred to as the employee contributions method.

 

To reduce the FBT payable on the benefit, the running costs will be paid by the employer from a combination of an employee's pre-tax and post-tax income under the salary sacrifice arrangement.

 

A question commonly asked is whether the running costs incurred by the employee from their after-tax income are deductible to the employee in their personal return. If so, can the employee use one of the two methods prescribed in Division 28 ITAA97 (that is, the cents per kilometre method or the log book method) or otherwise.


Car expense deductions denied under s51AF ITAA36


Broadly, "car expenses" incurred by an employee in respect of a car provided by an employer are specifically denied as a deduction under s51AF ITAA36.

 

In particular, a deduction for "car expenses" is denied where:

  • An employer during a period provides a car for the exclusive use of a person who is, or of persons any of whom is, an employee of the employer or a relative of such an employee, and
  • At any time during that period, the employee or a relative of the employee is entitled to use the car for private purposes.


A "car expense" is defined under s28-13 ITAA97 to include any loss or outgoing to do with a car (including costs in operating the car and its tax depreciation).

 

Note also that under s51AF ITAA36, the deduction is denied for car expenses that are incurred:

  • (i) during the relevant period in which the car was provided, or
  • (ii) is wholly or partly attributed to that period.


Also, as noted, a deduction is not allowed if the car is used by a relative such as a spouse, a parent or a child (see s995-1 for full definition).

 

In this case, the running costs incurred by the aforementioned employee from their after-tax income in relation to the car fringe benefit would not be deductible due to the operation of s51AF. In other words, they cannot claim a deduction for those costs – whether by using one of the methods in Division 28 ITAA97 or as a general deduction under s8-1 ITAA97.


Section 51AF applies because the vehicle, under the novated lease arrangement, was provided to the employee for their exclusive and private use.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the employee may still benefit from the arrangement. The after-tax contributions towards the car's running costs reduce the amount of FBT they would have been required to salary sacrifice as a component of their total remuneration.

 

Note that section 51AF would also be relevant where a company or fleet car is provided by an employer to an employee (or their relative) for their exclusive and private use. In such instances, running costs incurred by the employee such as fuel would not be deductible.


If you have any questions, email us or phone or friendly team on 02 9899 3044.


A team of professional workers from different backgrounds in a modern office
09 Apr, 2024
A new issues paper from Treasury’s Competition Review questions whether non-competes and other restraints are limiting job opportunities and movement. A recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey found that 46.9% of businesses surveyed used some kind of restraint clause, including for workers in non-executive roles. The survey also found 20.8% of businesses use non-compete clauses for at least some of their staff and 68.2% for more than three-quarters of their employees.  Over the last 30 years, Australia has seen a decline in job mobility. Australia is not alone in this and other advanced economies have experienced the same issue. While restraint clauses are not the only factor contributing to the decline – an ageing population and a rise in post-pandemic market concentration in some industries has also contributed - i t is specifically the role of restraints that is the focus of the Competition Review issues paper (s ubmissions close 31 May 2024).
Image of a person with business graphs indicating income and profits
09 Apr, 2024
The ATO is willing to pursue professional services firms who divert profits to avoid tax. The ATO can potentially challenge arrangements involving the distribution of profits from a professional practice.
Young couple out the front of their retail business
09 Apr, 2024
For many small business owners, their business is their largest asset and expected to help fund their retirement. But what is your business really worth and what sets a high value business apart?
More Posts
Share by: