Case Q104

Judges:
MB Hogan Ch
P Gerber M
GW Beck M

Court:
No. 3 Board of Review

Judgment date: 21 October 1983. Received from the Board 26 October 1983.

---

M.B. Hogan (Chairman)

I have had the advantage of reading the decisions of both of my colleagues. I gratefully adopt their summations of the facts and of the relevant law. There is, as will be perceived from a perusal of their respective decisions, only a very fine line of distinction between each of my colleagues, emerging largely from the perception of each, of the weight to be attributed to the evidence of the taxpayer.

2. I have come to the conclusion that the taxpayer's claim should succeed. I accept the taxpayer as a witness of truth who gave clear evidence without any tendency to overstatement, vide, as an example, her summation of the criteria applied by the committee before whom she appeared in perusing her application for appointment as a lecturer at the tertiary institution -

``The interviewers actually went through the criteria. It was very heavily contested, and they said they were not just after someone with historical background and paper qualifications. They had at least one applicant with a Ph.D. in history. They were after a teacher with considerable experience in the classroom, with the right attitude to his or her position in teaching, professional, ambitious perhaps, someone who wanted to move into the college from the high school arena, and with the wide and versatile background in history and classical literature and so on, and I seemed to fit the bill.''

That appeared in cross-examination. Earlier, in evidence-in-chief, she had stated in answer to questions from the Board -

``What caused you to go on the tour, apart from a natural interest, anyway, in ancient history and archaeology, etc.? - I saw it in two aspects: a method of making myself much more credible as a history teacher, when I do a lecture about sites such as the theatre of Epidaurus and the importance of its geographical location and the way it is constructed in the open air amphitheatre - these sorts of things I felt, and many would agree with me, no book or photograph can possibly convey, and it is only when you physically experience these sites that you are able to project their importance, so I thought it was necessary to go on such a trip to be credible as a history teacher.

At this stage only things within the parameters of continuing lecturing at... High School? - I did have in mind of applying for a lecturing position at college too, yes.

So, then, at that time you had in mind applying for a lectureship? - Yes, it was one of my ambitions, but the job was not advertised until November.

Did you see this tour as in some way fitting you for the lectureship job? - Yes.

That is not a reconstruction afterwards? - No. I did see it as part of my preparation to advance myself in teaching, along with my Masters degree.

You wanted to make yourself more credible as a history teacher, and what was the second one? - And to display to my superiors an attitude to be more involved and to keep myself up to date and to learn continually, since I think many of them now believe it is not enough to teach them year after year using perhaps the same old notes or textbooks or photographs, but it is important to have an attitude of inquiry and to develop yourself personally if you are going to be, in effect, a teacher. I felt that that would influence them in future promotions.''

Once that uncontested evidence is accepted, and regard is had to the subsequent advancement in her teaching career, a real connection is established between the expenditure and the taxpayer's assessable income in the sense that the tour went some way to establishing for her such preeminence as a teacher with considerable practical experience who yet preserved a professional and ambitious approach to her area of expertise, as to secure her advancement to teaching at the tertiary level; her evidence is clear that, from the beginning, she saw this particular tour as an instrument to that end. In the words of Waddell J. in
F.C. of T. v. Smith 78 ATC 4157 at p. 4162 , ``... in reliance upon the prospects of promotion which appeared reasonably to be present, (she) spent money to earn more in the future''.

3. I would add that the tour, though taken as a package, was a specialised package

---

ATC 524

heavily oriented in its content in Greece, particularly, and in Rome to her special interests in archaeology and ancient history; it was led by lecturers in Classics from two Australian universities, one of whom had had considerable field experience in archaeology in Italy. Both lecturers on the evidence took a very active and instructive part in the tour. The central week of the tour was spent in what is better known as the home of the High Renaissance and most of the activities of that period were directed to museums, churches etc. reflective rather of the Renaissance than of the taxpayer's direct interests in archaeology and ancient history. On reflection, I take the view that the taxpayer's purpose in pursuing her major interests must be regarded in characterising the expenditure incurred, and such detours into the Renaissance as took place, should be regarded as a pleasant necessity incidental to a tour, selected with her principal ends in view.

4. I would reduce the assessment to allow a further deduction of $2,162.