As this rental purchase system has gained popularity, another version of this system is becoming fashionable. Originally, the purchase of rent was a two-party transaction between the landlord and the tenant or intended buyer. Another variant is created when a financier plays a central role between the owner of the goods and the tenant. Many sellers do not have the desire to act as financiers themselves by providing loans to the tenant. Therefore, a lease transaction often involves a sale in which the seller sells the goods to a financial company and, second, a lease purchase agreement in which the finance company leases the goods to the buyer/lessee on lease terms. Therefore, the tenant has no real contractual relationship with the seller. Similarly, the seller is not obliged to take care of the lessee/intended buyer of goods to recover the balance of the price; the financier can pay the balance and proceed with the recovery. In this form were purchased by the financier by the seller, who then obtains from the intended tenant / buyer a rental contract, according to which the latter becomes the owner of the goods against payment of all the measurements of the agreed lease and the exercise of his option to buy the goods against payment of a nominal price. With regard to „purchase rental financing”, financing is provided by the finance company. In such cases, the tenant (buyer) becomes the owner of the goods. The financial company never owns the goods. It only has the right to confiscate the goods for non-payment of the loan. In fact, it is not a „rental purchase”, but a „rental financing”.

Therefore, if the delivery involves a movement of goods, the invoice must be issued before or at the time of collection of goods intended for delivery to the consignee. When buying rental, there is usually a movement of goods. Therefore, in law, the date of issue of the invoice must be „before or at the time of collection of goods” for delivery to the consignee where the delivery involves „movements of goods” and the date of delivery within the meaning of Section 12 must be. Third, the time purchase agreement can be considered an essential sale and loan agreement. This approach emphasizes the participation of the financier. Financiers always demand a return on their investment by paying interest and/or other fees. This view therefore postulates that there is no economic difference between the financier who buys the goods and, as stated at the beginning of this article, the GST treatment of the time purchase is not an easy matter. In fact, it is marked by uncertainties. These uncertainties depend largely on the nature of the purchase contracts to be tempered and the absence of a clear and consistent approach to the treatment of purchase contracts to be tempered in GST legislation. In the absence of the above, the above-mentioned alternative methods offer a logical approach to the analysis of the GST consequences of tempered purchase agreements.

The existence of three different approaches is certainly not the most desirable outcome, but unlike the ATO`s approach, it is at least in line with current legislation. The entire approach of the ATO is the position of an installment purchase agreement as delivery by sale. In addition, it is a one-time taxable benefit, unless a portion of the instalment purchase payments relate to a separate credit. In this case, a rather unusual pre-taxed delivery is also made. However, the legislation does not at any time consider a rental agreement as a sale. The consequences of GST are related to actual deliveries other than deliveries, unless GST legislation expressly considers that a delivery has taken place. . . .