Commissioner of Taxation v Finn

(1961) 106 CLR 60
12 ATD 348

(Judgment by: Windeyer J)

Between: Commissioner of Taxation
And: Finn

Court:
High Court of Australia

Judges: Dixon CJ
Kitto J

Windeyer J

Judgment date: 12 October 1961


Judgment by:
Windeyer J

I also agree. Each case of this sort must depend on its own facts. The facts and considerations relevant in this case appear fully in the judgment of the Chief Justice. Generally speaking, it seems to me, a taxpayer who gains income by the exercise of his skill in some profession or calling and who incurs expenses in maintaining or increasing his learning, knowledge, experience and ability in that profession or calling necessarily incurs those expenses in carrying on his profession or calling. Whether he be paid fees by different persons seeking his skilled services from time to time, or be paid a regular salary by one person employing him to exercise his skill, matters not in my opinion. Moreover, it would surely be wrong to assume that the Crown is so indifferent to the professional attainments of those whom it employs that their rights and prospects in its service are not affected by the true measure of those attainments. That was not so in this case. Outgoings incurred for the genuine purpose of acquiring or maintaining knowledge and skill in a vocation do not become an outgoing "of a private nature" simply because the taxpayer got pleasure and satisfaction in increasing his knowledge and attainments. (at p70)