Disallowed Deduction

Disallowed deductions refer to expenses or costs that are not permissible as tax-deductible items under the applicable tax laws of a jurisdiction. These disallowances typically arise when the expenses fail to meet the legislative criteria for deductibility, such as being wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of earning taxable income or when explicitly restricted by anti-avoidance provisions. Disallowed deductions can occur in both corporate and individual tax contexts, and they are often scrutinised during tax audits and assessments.

Such deductions are a critical component of tax compliance and planning, as they directly impact the taxable income of a taxpayer. For multinational enterprises (MNEs), disallowed deductions can arise in transfer pricing adjustments, thin capitalisation rules, or specific tax treaties. Examples of common disallowed deductions include excessive interest payments, penalties or fines, personal expenses, and expenses linked to non-business-related activities.

Disallowed deductions are central to tax risk management, requiring taxpayers to implement robust documentation and justification for claimed expenses. They also serve as a regulatory tool for governments to curb tax avoidance and promote equitable tax systems.


Examples of Disallowed Deductions in Practice

1. Excessive Interest Payments (Thin Capitalisation Rules)

An MNE operating in the United Kingdom borrowed heavily from a related party in a low-tax jurisdiction. The interest payments on this loan were claimed as deductions. However, under the UK’s thin capitalisation rules, only arm’s length interest rates are deductible. Since the interest exceeded the arm’s length benchmark, the excess portion was disallowed. This adjustment increased the company’s taxable income and highlighted the importance of complying with transfer pricing principles when structuring intra-group financing.


2. Non-Business Expenditures

A company in South Africa attempted to deduct expenses incurred for hosting a lavish party for shareholders as part of its corporate entertainment. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) disallowed these deductions, citing that the expenses were not “wholly and exclusively” incurred for trade purposes. This decision reinforced the principle that deductions must be directly tied to income-generating activities to qualify.


3. Penalties and Fines

An Australian corporation faced a significant penalty for non-compliance with environmental regulations. The company sought to deduct the penalty as a business expense, arguing it was part of their operational risks. However, Australian tax law explicitly prohibits the deduction of penalties and fines, rendering the expense non-deductible. This case served as a reminder for businesses to differentiate between ordinary business costs and non-deductible legal sanctions.


Prominent Cases Involving Disallowed Deductions

1. AstraZeneca PLC v HMRC (UK)

This case involved transfer pricing adjustments and the disallowance of certain intercompany charges deemed non-arm’s length. The UK Tax Tribunal upheld HMRC’s decision, disallowing deductions that did not meet the arm’s length principle.


2. CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works (India)

The Supreme Court of India ruled on the disallowance of certain expenses that were not directly linked to the taxable business income. The judgment clarified the scope of expenses allowable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting a precedent for similar disputes.


3. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Australia)

In this landmark case, Chevron’s intercompany financing arrangements resulted in excessive interest deductions. The Federal Court disallowed these deductions, emphasising compliance with arm’s length standards and thin capitalisation rules.