Disclaimer
This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication. It should not be regarded as indicative of the ATO's current views. The law may have changed since original publication, and views in the edited version may also be affected by subsequent precedents and new approaches to the application of the law.

You cannot rely on this record in your tax affairs. It is not binding and provides you with no protection (including from any underpaid tax, penalty or interest). In addition, this record is not an authority for the purposes of establishing a reasonably arguable position for you to apply to your own circumstances. For more information on the status of edited versions of private advice and reasons we publish them, see PS LA 2008/4.

Edited version of your private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1012009253269

This edited version of your ruling will be published in the public register of private binding rulings after 28 days from the issue date of the ruling. The attached private rulings fact sheet has more information.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.

Ruling

Subject: Fringe benefits tax - reimbursement of expenses

Question 1

In the event that the employer reimburses 100% of the employee's airfare,

Answer 1

a) Yes.

b) Yes

Question 2

In the event that the employer reimburses 50% of the employee's airfare,

Answer 2

a) Yes

b) Yes.

Question 3

Can the employer use the otherwise deductible rule under section 24 of the FBTAA to reduce the taxable value of the expense payment benefit provided to the employee, being the payment and reimbursement of overseas travel expenses, to nil?

Answer 3

No, but the taxable value of the expense payment fringe benefit can be reduced in part.

This ruling applies for the following period:

1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012

The scheme commences on:

1 April 2011

Relevant facts and circumstances

1. The employee will be attending a work related conference overseas. The purpose of attending the conference is to present a paper which forms pat of the employee's research.

2. The employee and their family wish to take this opportunity to take annual leave in the overseas. The employee and their family plan to take approximately two and a half weeks leave prior to the conference. The employee will not have had the opportunity to take any leave for over 12 months leading up to the. Following the conference, the employee is required to return immediately to commence work.

5. If it was not for attending the conference overseas, the employee and their family would not be taking the trip overseas.

6. The expenses the employer will be looking to reimburse the employee for are:

· Return airfares (for the employee only)

· Travel costs from one overseas city to another (for the employee only)

· Accommodation while attending conference

· Conference registration expenses.

7. In accordance with the employer's policy, a travel diary will be completed and submitted by the employee as per section 24 of the FBTAA to utilise the' otherwise deductible rule'.

Relevant legislative provisions

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 136(1).

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 20.

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 24.

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 45.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1.

ATO view documents

Taxation Ruling TR 95/33. (ATO View)

Taxation Ruling TR 98/9. (ATO View)

Other References

Fringe benefits tax: a guide for employers (ATO View)

Relevant Cases

Ronpibon Tin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 47.

No 3 Board of Review Case R13 84 ATC 168.

Ure v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 81 ATC 4100

Lenten v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 71 ATR 862, [2008] AATA 281

Reasons for decision

Question 1

In the event that the employer reimburses 100% of the employee's airfare:

Question 2

In the event that the employer reimburses 50% of the employee's airfare,

Summary

Detailed reasoning

"Benefit' is defined in subsection 136(1) of the FBTAA to include:

Each of the flights will be provided to an employee.

The flights will be provided by the employer.

Expense payment benefit

Expense payment fringe benefit

Question 3

Can the employer use the otherwise deductible (ODR) rule under section 24 of the FBTAA to reduce the taxable value of the expense payment benefit provided to the employee, being the payment and reimbursement of overseas travel expenses to nil?

Summary

Otherwise deductible rule

Deductibility of expenses

Self-education expenses

33. TR 98/9 sets out the circumstances in which self education expenses are allowable deductions. Paragraphs 63 to 70 of TR 98/9 discuss the application of the general deduction provision to overseas travel expenses.

34. TR 98/9 states that if the purpose of a study tour or attendance at a work related conference or seminar is the gaining or producing of assessable income, the existence of an incidental private purpose does not affect the characterisation of the expenses as wholly incurred in gaining assessable income.

35. TR 98/9 provides examples indicating that where overseas travel is undertaken voluntarily and is planned to be for business and private purposes equally, expenses of a single outlay that serve both purposes should be apportioned. The examples in paragraphs 67 to 70 of TR 98/9 are listed below:

36. In this case, the employee undertook a work related overseas travel to attend a conference. Therefore the expenses are deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997.

37. The employer would be able to reduce the taxable value of the expense payment fringe benefit under the otherwise deductible rule, as the employee would be entitled to claim a deduction if they had incurred the expenses themself.

Apportionment of business and private

38. The airfares for the return trip from an overseas business location is work related expenditure. However, where the trip has a private purpose, consideration has to be given to whether an apportionment of the airfare between business and private purposes will be warranted.

39. In cases where the airfare relates to both work related and private purposes, an apportionment of the expense is required. TR 98/9 discusses the apportionment of travel expenses.

40. In TR 98/9 paragraph 64 states that 'If the purpose of a study tour or attendance at a work-related conference or seminar is the gaining or producing of income, the existence of an incidental private purpose does not affect the characterisation of the related expenses as wholly incurred in gaining assessable income'. 

41. TR 98/9 at paragraph 65 further states that if travel to a work-related conference was mainly devoted to a private purpose, such as having a holiday, and the gaining or producing of income was merely incidental to the private purpose, only those expenses directly attributable to the income-earning purpose would be allowable.

42. In Federal Court Case Ronpibon Tin v FC of T (1949) 78 CLR 47; 4 AITR 236 the Court expressed the view that there are generally two kinds of items of expenditure that require apportionment: those items that are capable of dissection; and those that cannot be dissected but should be apportioned on the basis that they serve more than one objective. The latter would clearly apply to an airfare purchased for both work and private purposes.

43. The question of apportionment was discussed in Case R13 84 ATC 168; 27 CTBR (NS) Case 64 (Case R13). In that case, a dentist spent six weeks overseas, five days of which were spent at a Dental Congress in Paris and the rest of the time was spent sightseeing. The trip was undertaken by the taxpayer with two objects in mind - attending the Dental Congress and having a holiday. The airfare served both objects, however only the first object qualified the expense as deduction.  The Commissioner apportioned the expenditure on the airfares on a time basis and allowed the taxpayer a deduction of 5/40ths of the air fare which represented the five days spent at the Congress. However, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that the proper method of apportioning the expense was to determine the degree of predominance attached to each object. In this case, each object was of equal weight and therefore, one-half of the airfare was allowed as a deduction.

44. From the facts provided, the employee will be attending a work related two day conference overseas and taking a two and a half week annual leave overseas prior to the conference.

45. The employer will reimburse the employee for the cost of the return airfare and the travel costs and for the accommodation for the days while attending the conference.

46. The employee will be responsible for their own accommodation while taking annual leave prior to the conference.

47. The employee has stated that the employee's dominant purpose of the trip is to attend the work related conference.

48. If not for attending the conference, the employee would not be taking a holiday overseas. The employer considered the holidays taken prior to the conference will be incidental given the above reasons for the business travel and the majority of travel was in the service of the employer and that expenses incurred for this holiday are at the employee's expense. The employer considers that as the private purpose of travel is incidental, it will not affect the expense from being allowed in full which is confirmed in paragraph 64 of TR 98/9 which states as follows:

49. In this case the employee's purpose of the trip is to attend a work-related two day conference overseas and taking a private holiday for two and half weeks overseas prior to attending the conference. Where the private days are equal to or more than the period of conference we need to consider the factors in No 3 Board of Review Case R13 84 ATC 168 and Ure v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 81 ATC 4100 (Ure).

50. In No 3 Board of Review Case R13 84 ATC 168 the board of review looked at the purpose of an overseas trip to determine the apportionment of air fares. In his reasons for the decision Dr Gerber applied Ure and stated at page 170 'It is now clear beyond doubt that whether or not an outgoing has been incurred in gaining or producing assessable income demands an examination of the purpose for which the moneys were expended'. The board considered that the taxpayers motivation for travelling overseas was to attend the conference and to take a holiday. Consequently they apportioned the air-fare on the basis of one-half business and one-half private.

51. In the present case, it is considered that having a two and half weeks holiday prior to attending a conference is more than an incidental private purpose. There is a dual purpose to the trip, one relating to work and the other being private in nature. Consequently, it is necessary to apportion the airfare expenses incurred to determine the extent to which the airfares will be deductible.

52. In AAT Case Lenten v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 71 ATR 862, [2008] AATA 281 (Lenten), a teacher was allowed a deduction for overseas travel expenses as the AAT was satisfied that the purpose of the travel was to enhance his promotional opportunities within the school where he was employed. It was held, allowing the application, finding that 75% of the travel expenses were deductible under paragraph 8-1(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997. The dominant purpose of the taxpayer's travel was to secure professional advancement within a competitive work environment. The travel directly led to the taxpayer's promotion with a consequent income increase. Non-mandatory expectations of overseas travel by the school would not of themselves justify the deductibility of the resultant expenses, but the taxpayer in this case undertook the travel with a view to supporting his colleagues in developing school materials and in attaining a level of extra-curricular professional activity consistent with mandatory government standards.

53. The present case is distinguished from Lenten, from the facts provided the employee along with their family will taking a two and a half weeks annual leave to take a private holiday overseas prior to the employee attending a two day work related conference overseas. The annual leave to be taken by the employee with their family is not work related and considered to be of a private nature.

54. It is considered that a reasonable apportionment would be to allow a deduction for half the cost of the airfares. Therefore, one half of the airfare expense incurred is deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997. However, where an expense is reimbursed, no deduction is allowable. Therefore the taxable value of the expense payment fringe benefit will be cost of half the airfares and would be reduced to 50% under the 'otherwise deductible rule'.

55. The accommodation, meals and incidental expenses for when the employee has a holiday after the business travel is at the employee's own expense, therefore no fringe benefit has been provided or is applicable.

Conclusion

56. The application of the 'otherwise deductible rule' in section 24 of the FBTAA will only apply to the extent that the expenditure would have been income tax deductible, therefore the taxable value of the expense payment fringe benefit will be reduced to by half the cost of the airfares.


Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).