Thanks I haven't looked at the history of those, but if they...

Thanks

I haven't looked at the history of those, but if they relate to Savage CGU they could theoretically be reversed if the circumstances that led to the declines reversed and they wouldn't otherwise have a depreciated cost that wouldn't warrant a reversal.

The deferred tax assets are a mix of temporary deductible differences, predominantly would've been due to impairments historically, and also some unused tax losses. The tax loss disclosure is vague and doesn't say what circumstances need to occur for them to become available - they reference business ownership and continuity tests and if they failed these in the past due to changing ownership of controlling stakes, say, i wonder if it actually means they may never be available. Eitherway can't tell from the note.

@ miningnut thanks for the reference, I knew the franking credit requirement was somewhere, but obviously got that reference wrong working off the top of my head. 1054 is a specific aussie requirement which makes sense given the topic of franking credits.