Federal Court Insights on PRRT Tolling Receipts: Key Lessons from the Esso Australia Case

Introduction

The Federal Court’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 151 provides a significant ruling on the interpretation of section 24A of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 (Cth) (PRRTA Act). This case specifically addresses the tax status of payments made by Santos to Esso under two distinct categories: Monthly Reservation Fees (MRFs) and a lump sum Settlement Sum. These payments were made as part of the Kipper Gas Processing Agreement (KGPA) for the processing of petroleum extracted from the Kipper gas field in the Gippsland Basin.

The case sheds light on the interpretation of “tolling receipts,” a critical concept under Australian resource tax law, and provides insight into the timing of the derivation of such payments. This analysis examines the Court’s application of legal principles from important precedents, including Dick Smith Electronics [2005] HCA 3 and Lend Lease Development [2014] HCA 51, while also exploring the substance of the contractual arrangements in question.

Background Facts

Esso, as part of the Gippsland Basin Joint Venture (GBJV), operates a series of petroleum processing facilities in Victoria. The Kipper gas field, part of the GBJV, required the development of additional infrastructure to process the gas. Due to high levels of mercury found in the gas, significant delays occurred in processing, prompting Esso and its joint venture partners, including Santos and Mitsui, to revise their agreements.

Under the original Kipper Gas Processing Agreement (KGPA), Esso and its joint venture partners agreed on various fees for the processing of petroleum. Two critical payments were made:

1. Monthly Reservation Fees (MRFs) – Paid by Santos and later by Mitsui from 2012 to 2017, these fees covered a period in which processing capacity was reserved but not necessarily used. The MRFs were based on the maximum daily quantity (MDQ) of gas that could be processed, irrespective of whether gas was actually processed. These payments were considered prepayments for future capacity under the KGPA.
2. Settlement Sum – In 2014, Santos paid a lump sum of $23,410,477 to Esso to settle a dispute over the delayed processing of gas. The Settlement Sum was intended to cover the first nine MRFs paid between October 2012 and June 2013, as well as additional amounts owed for monthly statements issued after June 2013.

The issue before the Federal Court was whether these payments qualified as “assessable tolling receipts” under section 24A of the PRRTA Act, which defines such receipts as “consideration receivable by a person in relation to the processing of petroleum.”

Section 24A – Assessable Tolling Receipts

“Assessable tolling receipts” is defined under section 24A of the PRRTA Act:

‘For the purposes of this Act, a reference to assessable tolling receipts derived by a person in relation to a petroleum project is a reference to the consideration receivable by the person in relation to the processing of external petroleum, or internal petroleum, in relation to the project.’

This provision was central to the case, as it required the Court to determine whether the MRFs and the Settlement Sum were linked to the processing of petroleum and therefore qualified as “assessable tolling receipts”.

Issues in Dispute

The primary issues before the Court were:

• MRFs as Assessable Tolling Receipts – Whether the MRFs, though prepayments for future processing, could be classified as “consideration receivable in relation to the processing of petroleum.”
• Settlement Sum as Assessable Tolling Receipt – Whether the lump sum Settlement Sum, paid to settle a dispute over delayed processing, was considered an assessable tolling receipt, even though it was not a direct payment for petroleum processing.
• Timing of Derivation – The Court was asked to determine when the MRFs and the Settlement Sum were derived for tax purposes. This issue was crucial in understanding whether the payments should be included in Esso’s tax returns for the relevant period or in subsequent periods.

Prior Court Decision

The primary judge ruled that neither the MRFs nor the Settlement Sum constituted assessable tolling receipts. The judge concluded that the MRFs were paid in advance for the right to future processing capacity, not for the processing of petroleum itself. The Settlement Sum was seen as a settlement payment resolving a dispute and not directly linked to tolling activities.

Arguments for the Commissioner (Appellant)

The Commissioner contended that the MRFs, despite being prepayments, represented consideration for the future processing of petroleum. The Commissioner argued that the fees were paid to secure processing capacity, and therefore, should be classified as tolling receipts under section 24A. Similarly, the Commissioner argued that the Settlement Sum, though made in the context of a dispute, was effectively part of the broader tolling arrangement between the parties and should be treated as an assessable receipt.

Arguments for Esso (Respondent)

Esso, on the other hand, argued that the MRFs were not consideration for the processing of petroleum, but rather prepayments for future reserved capacity. They contended that the payments did not meet the definition of tolling receipts, as they were not contingent on the actual processing of petroleum. Regarding the Settlement Sum, Esso argued that it was a lump sum paid to resolve a dispute and was not directly linked to the tolling of petroleum. Esso further contended that the timing of derivation was tied to the settlement of the dispute, not the underlying processing activities.

Decision of the Court

The Federal Court allowed the Commissioner’s appeal, ruling that both the MRFs and the Settlement Sum were assessable tolling receipts under section 24A of the PRRTA Act. In its judgment, the Court emphasised that the substance of the payments, rather than their form, determined whether they qualified as tolling receipts.

• MRFs as Assessable Tolling Receipts – The Court held that the MRFs, though prepayments, constituted consideration for the processing of petroleum. The Court noted that the MRFs were paid to secure processing capacity, which was directly tied to the processing of gas from the Kipper field. Despite the payments being made in advance, the Court found that they fell within the definition of tolling receipts because they were part of the contractual arrangement to process petroleum in the future.
• Settlement Sum as Assessable Tolling Receipt – Regarding the Settlement Sum, the Court ruled that it was part of the broader tolling arrangement under the KGPA. While it was paid to resolve a dispute, the Court found that the payment was ultimately linked to the processing activities governed by the KGPA. The Court concluded that the Settlement Sum was an assessable tolling receipt because it compensated Esso for its role in the processing arrangement, even though the payment arose in the context of a dispute.
• Timing of Derivation – On the issue of timing, the Court ruled that both the MRFs and the Settlement Sum were derived when they were received by Esso. The Court rejected the argument that the MRFs should be derived only when the actual processing occurred, emphasising that the right to process petroleum was secured by the prepayment of the MRFs, which triggered the tax obligation at the time of receipt.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision was influenced by several important precedents that guided its interpretation of “consideration” under section 24A of the PRRTA Act. The Court referenced the Dick Smith Electronics [2005] HCA 3, where the High Court held that the concept of consideration in taxation law must be interpreted in a practical and businesslike manner, focusing on the substance of the transaction rather than the formalities. The decision in Lend Lease Development [2014] HCA 51 reinforced the principle that the substance of a payment determines whether it constitutes assessable income, even when the payment is made in advance or in the context of a dispute.

In its reasoning, the Court also considered the broader contractual context in which the payments were made, drawing on the principles established in cases like Chevron Australia Holdings [2017] FCAFC 62, which emphasised the need to focus on the actual economic relationship between the parties when determining the character of a payment.

The Court’s decision in this case further solidified the application of these precedents, particularly the principle that prepayments for future services, when tied to the performance of a specific contractual obligation, can be classified as assessable tolling receipts.

Practical Takeaways

This case provides several key insights into how tolling receipts are treated under the PRRTA Act:

1. Prepayments as Tolling Receipts – The decision confirms that prepayments made to secure the right to process petroleum can qualify as tolling receipts, even if the processing has not yet occurred. Taxpayers should carefully consider the substance of such payments when determining their tax obligations under the PRRTA Act.
2. Settlement Payments and Tolling Receipts – Payments made to settle disputes can still be classified as tolling receipts if they are tied to underlying processing agreements. The Court’s focus on the substance of the payment, rather than its form or purpose, underscores the importance of examining the overall contractual arrangement when determining tax liability.
3. Timing of Derivation – The Court’s ruling that prepayments and settlement sums are derived when received, rather than when the services are provided, has significant implications for tax reporting. Businesses in the resource sector must be mindful of the timing of such payments and ensure they are reported in the correct tax period.

Conclusion

The Esso decision reaffirms that the interpretation of tolling receipts under the PRRTA Act must focus on the economic reality of the transactions, considering both the terms of the agreement and the substance of the payments. This approach provides clarity for businesses involved in resource processing arrangements.

Contact Us today if you’re seeking any clarification on this Case.