| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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 written advice
Authorisation Number: 1012823762414
Date of advice: 18 June 2015
Ruling
Subject: Business expense-pilot licence
Question:
Is the company entitled to a deduction for the costs incurred for an employee to obtain a pilot licence?
Answer:
Yes
This ruling applies for the following periods:
Year ending 30 June 2015
Year ending 30 June 2016
The scheme commenced on:
1 July 2014
Relevant facts
The company provides certain services.
The company services all areas in one state of Australia.
For services provided to remote locations, the long distances result in substantial travel time and costs.
The company believes that having an employee obtain a pilot licence will allow the company to reduce its costs and operate more efficiently.
Relevant legislative provisions
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1
Reasons for decision
Under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) you can claim deductions for expenses 'to the extent' they are incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income, or they are necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing your assessable income.
You cannot claim deductions under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for expenses 'to the extent' to which they are of a capital, private or domestic nature or they are incurred in gaining or producing exempt income.
Necessarily incurred
The phrase 'necessarily incurred' does not mean that the expense was unavoidable or logically necessary. The expense must be clearly and appropriately adapted for the ends of the business.
Where the expense is voluntary, the controlling factor is whether the expense can objectively be seen to be appropriate to the business activity (Magna Alloys & Research v. FC of T 80 ATC 4542; (1980)11 ATR 276 (Magna Alloys)).
Taxation Ruling TR 95/33 is the Commissioner's view on the relevance of subjective purpose, motive or intention in determining the deductibility of losses and outgoings. TR 95/33 indicates that if the outgoing produces no assessable income, or the amount of assessable income is less than the amount of outgoing, it may be necessary to examine all the circumstances surrounding the expenditure to determine whether the outgoing is wholly deductible. This may, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, include an examination of the taxpayer's subjective purpose, motive or intention in incurring the expenditure.
This position is further confirmed in the case of Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Smith (1981) 147 CLR 578 at 587, where it was stated:
The section does not require that the purpose of the expenditure shall be the gaining of the income of that year, so long as it was made in the given year and is incidental and relevant to the operations or activities regularly carried on for the production of income. What is incidental and relevant in the sense mentioned falls to be determined not by reference to the certainty or likelihood of the outgoing resulting in the generation of income but to its nature and character, and generally to its connection with operations which more directly gain or produce the assessable income.
In the case of a company, the relevant purpose is the corporate purpose. This requires an examination of the purpose, motive or intention of the company's directors, officers and employees. However, the subjective purpose of any particular director, officer or employee will not by itself be determinative; see Magna Alloys per Deane and Fisher JJ 80 ATC 4542 at 4558; 11 ATR 276 at 294. (Paragraph 13 of TR 95/33).
Deane and Fisher JJ in Magna Alloys rely on authorities which support the view that, in a case where the outgoing is voluntary in the sense that it was voluntarily incurred in the pursuit of a particular advantage or object, the taxpayer's subjective purpose or motive or assessment of appropriateness to the ends of the business is of critical importance to the decision as to whether the outgoing was necessarily incurred in carrying on the relevant business (at p. 4558).
However, their Honours suggest that the determining factor is that, viewed objectively, the outgoing must, in the circumstances, be reasonably capable of being seen as desirable or appropriate from the point of view of the pursuit of the business ends of the business being carried on for the purpose of earning assessable income (at p. 4559).
In this case, the company is seeking to voluntarily incur the cost of flying lessons for one of its employees in an effort to reduce the cost of servicing its remote clients. Being able to service clients in an efficient and cost effective manner is relevant to the company's corporate purpose that is to provide its services to its clients. Therefore, the expenses incurred for flying lessons for an employee of the company are deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 as they are considered to be necessarily incurred in carrying on your business.
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).
