ATO Interpretative Decision

ATO ID 2004/273 (Withdrawn)

Income Tax

Medical Expense Tax Offset: expenses paid by another and subsequently reimbursed
FOI status: may be released
  • This ATO ID is withdrawn as it may be misleading. Refer also to ATO ID 2004/272 (withdrawn).
    This document incorporates revisions made since original publication. View its history and amending notices, if applicable.

CAUTION: This is an edited and summarised record of a Tax Office decision. This record is not published as a form of advice. It is being made available for your inspection to meet FOI requirements, because it may be used by an officer in making another decision.

This ATOID provides you with the following level of protection:

If you reasonably apply this decision in good faith to your own circumstances (which are not materially different from those described in the decision), and the decision is later found to be incorrect you will not be liable to pay any penalty or interest. However, you will be required to pay any underpaid tax (or repay any over-claimed credit, grant or benefit), provided the time limits under the law allow it. If you do intend to apply this decision to your own circumstances, you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed. You may wish to obtain further advice from the Tax Office or from a professional adviser.

Issue

Is a taxpayer entitled to a medical expense tax offset under section 159P of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) for expenses debited to the credit card of their spouse and subsequently reimbursed by the taxpayer?

Decision

Yes. A taxpayer is entitled to a medical expense tax offset under section 159P of the ITAA 1936 for expenses debited to the credit card of their spouse and subsequently reimbursed by the taxpayer.

Facts

The taxpayer incurred medical expenses in excess of $1500.

The expenses were debited to the credit card of the taxpayer's spouse.

The credit card was subsequently partly paid by funds belonging to the taxpayer.

All the expenses were paid in the year of income.

The taxpayer received no reimbursement from a government, public authority, society, association or fund.

Reasons for Decision

Subsection 159P(1) of the ITAA 1936 states:

An amount paid by the taxpayer in the year of income as medical expenses in respect of himself, or in respect of a dependant who is a resident, less any amount paid to the taxpayer or any other person, and any amount which the taxpayer or any other person is entitled to be paid, in respect of those medical expenses by a government or public authority or by a society, association or fund (whether incorporated or not) shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as a rebatable amount in respect of that year of income.

In AAT Case 144 (1987) 18 ATR 4055; Case U223 87 ATC 1231 the taxpayer was involved in a motor vehicle accident which resulted in substantial medical expenses. A large portion of the expenses were paid by the Government Insurance Office (GIO). After taking legal action the taxpayer received compensation which took into account the fact that the GIO had paid some medical expenses.

The taxpayer claimed a rebate for the amount paid by the GIO. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that he had not 'paid' the expenses and was, therefore, not entitled to the rebate. At ATR 4062; ATC 1237 Purvis J (Presidential Member) stated:

The taxpayer is not out of pocket by reason of the subject expenditure. He did not himself disburse the moneys. ...
This is not a case where the taxpayer has, from his own funds, or funds to which he would otherwise have been entitled, disbursed moneys and after payment by a government or public authority, or by a society, association or fund, still been "out-of-pocket"; the latter then being treated as rebateable, that is, subject to notional or actual reimbursement as to part, and at the expense of the public revenue.
Indeed, if in a case such as the present, where medical disbursements were paid by an insurer, a taxpayer was able to claim them as a rebateable amount, he would then derive a monetary benefit consequent on expenditure made by another and in respect of which he was at no time out of pocket. Where expenditure is incurred and payment funded by a taxpayer then except as to any part in respect of which there is an entitlement in the taxpayer to repayment, a claim for rebate is maintainable.

The taxpayer's situation can be distinguished from that set out above.

Even though all the payments were debited to the spouse's credit card, part of the debt was paid by the taxpayer. As such, the taxpayer was out of pocket for the amount of the medical expenses incurred on the card which was subsequently paid from their own funds.

In view of this, the taxpayer is entitled to a medical expense tax offset under section 159P of the ITAA 1936 for the amount of medical expenses debited to the spouse's credit card which was subsequently paid from their own funds. No medical expense tax offset is allowable for any part of the medical expenses, debited to the card, which was subsequently paid by the taxpayer's spouse.

Date of decision:  4 March 2004

Year of income:  Year ended 30 June 2003

Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
   section 159P
   subsection 159P(1)

Case References:
Case U223
   87 ATC 1231

AAT Case 144
   (1987) 18 ATR 4055

Related ATO Interpretative Decisions
ATO ID 2004/272

Keywords
Medical expenses rebates

Business Line:  Business and Personal Taxes Centre of Expertise

Date of publication:  26 March 2004

ISSN: 1445-2782

history
  Date: Version:
  4 March 2004 Original statement
You are here 23 April 2010 Archived