Edited version of your written advice

Authorisation Number: 1051369914100

Date of advice: 8 May 2018

Ruling

Subject: Fringe benefits tax: car fringe benefits and home to work travel

Issue 1

Question 1

Is the Company entitled to a deduction under section 8-1 and Division 40 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) for expenditure incurred in relation to the provision of a car to the employee?

Answer

Yes.

Issue 2

In determining the Company’s Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) liability arising from its provision of a car to the employee under section 10 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA), would the following constitute a “business journey”:

Question 1

All journeys between home and work on the basis that the employee is an itinerant worker?

Answer

No

Question 2

All journeys between home and work on the basis that the employee needs to transport bulky equipment?

Answer

No

Question 3

Trips between locations where the employee performs work?

Answer

Yes

Question 4

Trips between a location where the employee performs work and the business premises of the Group?

Answer

Yes

Question 5

Trips between the employee’s home address and a location at which he performs work (not including emergency on call work)?

Answer

No

Question 6

Trips between the employee’s home address and a location at which he performs work for emergency on call work?

Answer

Yes.

Question 7

Trips between the employee’s home address and the location at which the employee will work at on a particular day where he visits clients at another location on the way?

Answer

Yes.

Question 8

Trips between the employee’s home address and the Group’s business premises?

Answer

No.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

Income year ending 30 June 20XX

Income year ending 30 June 20XX

Income year ending 30 June 20XX

Income year ending 30 June 20XX

FBT year ending 31 March 20XX

FBT year ending 31 March 20XX

FBT year ending 31 March 20XX

FBT year ending 31 March 20XX

The scheme commences on:

1 July 20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances

1. The employee operates a business providing medical services which he runs through his company (the Company). The employee is the sole director and worker in his business.

2. No employment contract exists between the employee and the Company.

3. The employee is accredited to work at various locations in the region.

4. The locations are scattered over an area of approximately 100kms (north-south) and 40kms (east-west).

5. No contracts for services exist between the entities operating at these locations and the Company or with the employee directly.

6. The employee is a member of the Group. The Group provides administration services for which the Company pays a fee. The Group invoices clients on behalf of the Company and performs other administration services.

7. Generally, the employee will arrange work directly with clients.

8. The employee is not required to work a set number of hours for each entity at each location. The entities provide the work environment and equipment but the work itself is arranged with other medical professionals. The medical professionals will work a variable number of hours. The employee is expected to work with the medical professional on a set list of patients, until the list is complete.

9. The employee’s work is arranged in a few main ways:

● Regular lists with specific medical professionals at particular locations on a four weekly rotational basis (average of 3 days per week)

● Irregular lists from ad-hoc work and filling-in for other specialists

● Regular on call work – scheduled in advance (minimum of one weeknight per month and one weekend per six months)

● Ad-hoc on call work – being available at short notice for unplanned or emergency cases, for any of the locations.

10. Irregular lists are arranged through the Group. Medical professionals will arrange lists on an ad-hoc basis then contact the Group to request someone to do the work. Some irregular work is also arranged by clients contacting the employee directly. Irregular lists can be at any of the locations.

11. Ad-hoc work can be arranged anytime from months in advance to on the day of the work. The employee has the option of refusing ad-hoc work when requested, but will generally try to accommodate his clients.

12. Regular ‘on call’ work includes fill-in work (covering for colleagues) and emergency calls.

13. When on call for emergencies, the employee is required to provide instructions over the phone before traveling to the work location.

14. The above work arrangements mean that most days the employee will be working with one medical professional at one location for the whole day. At least one day per week he is scheduled to work at two locations in one day. It is rare for the employee to work at the same location for two consecutive days.

15. Typically, the employee will visit the location he worked at the previous day to review patients before travelling to the location he is required to work at that day. On some days, he will also travel to the location he will be working at the next day in order to see a patient he will work with on the following day.

16. The employee will travel to the Group’s business premises once or twice a week to leave billing sheets and to collect other paperwork on behalf of the Company. The employee does not perform any work at the business premises, there is a common room available for members to see patients but the employee chooses not to use these rooms for practical reasons. There is no internet available at the business premises or network connection.

17. The employee chooses to do the majority of his ancillary work from a room at his home that is set aside for work purposes. The room has two work computers, fax/scanner/printer, a filing cabinet, medical library and a dedicated phone line.

18. On average, the employee uses this room for work for approximately 20-30 hrs per week.

19. The employee undertakes the following tasks at his home:

● contacting patients by phone. This may take place during the working day (if time permits), or more commonly on the weekend or in the evening

● keeping up to date with advances in his field

● completing administrative tasks such as paying bills on behalf of the Company

● researching and preparing for the next day’s work

● using the desktop computer for patient consultations via Skype.

20. The Company provides the employee with a car for business and private use. The car is owned by the Company.

21. No travel allowance is paid to the employee by the Company.

22. The Company currently incurs a FBT liability in relation to the provision of the car and uses the operating cost method under section 10 FBTAA to calculate this liability.

23. The Company’s provision of a motor vehicle permits the employee to carry with him several items of equipment including:

● frequently referred to reference books which are not available at the various locations he works at and are not available online

● preferred equipment which may not be available at all locations

24. The total weight of books and equipment is approximately 60kg.

25. There is no secure place to store this equipment at either the Group’s business premises or the various work locations. The Group’s business premises has a small office which is available for use on an ad-hoc basis, but without any space to store personal items. The work locations have no areas use as office space or for storage.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 8-1

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 25-100

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Division 40

Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986 section 136(1)

Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986 section 10

Reasons for decision

Issue 1

Question 1

Summary

The Company is entitled to claim a deduction for the expenses incurred in providing the employee with a motor vehicle to use for his business and private activities.

Detailed reasoning

A company can generally claim expenses for a motor vehicle owned or leased by the company as long as the expenses are incurred as part of the everyday running of the business.

These expenses can include the costs for providing a motor vehicle to an employee as part of their remuneration package.

The provision of a car which is used either by an employee or an employee’s associate for private purposes is a fringe benefit and the company may have to pay fringe benefits tax (FBT) in respect of that benefit. However, the FBT payable is also tax deductible.

Motor vehicle expenses include:

● Operating costs (including general repairs and maintenance), deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997

● Decline in value, deductible under Division 40 of the ITAA 1997

Repairs will only be deductible under section 25-10 of the ITAA 1997 in specific circumstances where all of the conditions have been met. Generally, motor vehicle repairs and maintenance expense will be deductible under section 8-1, unless section 25-10 specifically applies to the particular repair. For this reason, the application of this section has not been included in the ruling question.

The employee operates a business providing medical services which he runs through his company (the Company). The employee is the sole director and worker in his business.

The Company provides the employee with a car that he uses for both business and private purposes.

The Company is entitled to claim a deduction for the expenses incurred in providing the employee with a motor vehicle to use for his business and private activities.

For the portion of private use of the vehicle, the Company will pay FBT, as discussed under Issue 2 below.

Issue 2

Car fringe benefits

Generally, a fringe benefit arises where an employer makes a vehicle they hold available for the private use of its employee.

Employee

To be subject to fringe benefits tax two essential requirements must be satisfied. First, the benefit must be provided to an employee (or employee’s associate) and, second, the benefit must be provided in respect of the employment of the employee.

A 'current employee' is defined in the legislation to mean a person who is entitled to receive salary or wages; this includes a director who receives directors' fees.

Taxable value of car fringe benefit

Calculating the taxable value of car fringe benefits under the operating cost method in section 10 of the FBTAA requires, amongst other things, a determination of the 'business use percentage' applicable to the car.

Subsection 136(1) of the FBTAA defines ‘business journey’ to mean:

(a) … a journey undertaken in a car otherwise than in the application of the car to a private use, being an application that results in the provision of a fringe benefit in relation to the employer;...

The term 'private use' in relation to a motor vehicle means any use by the employee or associate 'that is not exclusively in the course of producing assessable income of the employee'.

The test for determining business use for FBT purposes is essentially the same as that determining whether an expense is deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997. Section 8-1 allows a deduction for losses and outgoings incurred in gaining or producing a taxpayer’s assessable income provided the losses or outgoings are not private, domestic or capital in nature..

The distinction between business and private use of a car is discussed in Taxation Ruling MT 2027 Fringe benefits tax: private use of cars: home to work travel and also Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2017/D6 Income tax and fringe benefits tax: when are deductions allowed for employees’ travel expenses?

Paragraph 22 of TR 2017/D6 lists the following factors to determine whether travel is undertaken in performing an employee’s work activities:

● whether the work activities require the employee to undertake travel

● whether the employee is paid, directly or indirectly, to undertake the travel

● whether the employee is subject to the direction and control of their employer for the period of travel, and

● whether the above factors have been contrived to give a private journey the appearance of work travel.

Travel between places of employment

Travel directly between two places of employment, two places of business or a place of employment and place of business is generally accepted as business travel where the person does not live at either of the places and they travel to engage in income-producing activities.

Under section 25-100 of the ITAA 1997, if you are an individual, a deduction is allowed where you travel directly between:

● two places of employment

● two places of business, or

● a place of employment and a place of business

● and;

● you were engaged in activities to gain or produce your assessable income at your first workplace and the purpose of your travel to your second workplace was to gain or produce your assessable income.

However, a deduction will not generally be allowed where you:

● do not travel directly from the first workplace to the second workplace

● engage in a private or domestic activity after leaving the first workplace and prior to commencing work at the second workplace

● permanently cease your income earning activities at the first workplace prior to travelling to a second workplace, or

● reside at one of the workplaces.

Travel between home and work

Travel to and from work is usually private use. There are a few circumstances where travel between home and work may count as work travel:

● travel where duties commence prior to leaving home

● a business trip on the way to or from work

● the nature of work is itinerant.

Duties commenced prior to leaving home

The fact that an employee may travel to and from work in response to a call while on stand-by duty would not ordinarily alter the character of that travel, that is, it remains private in nature.

However, travel from home to work while on call will be a business journey where the employee’s duties begin at home and are completed at the place of employment. Where the duties begin at the place of work, the journey from home to work will be private.

For example, a medical practitioner, under the terms of employment with a hospital, is required to be accessible by phone to receive emergency calls and to give immediate treatment instructions before travelling to the hospital. Therefore, their responsibility for treating the patient starts when they receive the call. Although the travel taken in response to an emergency call is considered business travel, regular daily travel undertaken by the employee to and from work, and not in response to an emergency call, is still considered private, (see MT2027 paragraphs 17-22.)

The travel will also be private in nature if the taxpayer simply chooses to do the work in two separate places.

Business trips

MT 2027 provides guidance on cases where, while the nature of the employment is not inherently itinerant, an employee is required in the ordinary course of duties to visit clients, such as employees engaged as accountants, solicitors or doctors.

Where an employee is required in their ordinary course of duties to visit clients or customers, and the travel is from their usual place of employment, it is clearly business travel. However, where the travel is from the employee’s home directly to the client’s premises and then onto the office, this position is less clear.

Where an employee travels from home to the premises of a client or customer, and then on to a regular place of employment, the total journey is accepted as business travel where:

● the employee has a regular place of employment to which they habitually travel

● in performing their duties as an employee, they travel to an alternative destination that is not a regular place of employment

● the journey is to a location at which the employee performs substantial duties.

Travel to an employee’s place of employment would not be accepted as business travel where the employee merely performs incidental tasks enroute such as collecting mail, or for example, a dentist who calls at a dental laboratory to collect dentures enroute to the surgery where he is employed, (see MT2027 paragraphs 34.)

Itinerant work

Travel to and from an employee's home may be considered business travel where the nature of the employment is itinerant. Examples include commercial travellers and government inspectors whose homes are a base of operations, from which they travel to one of a number of locations throughout the day, over a continuing period.

Taxation Ruling TR 95/34 Income tax: employees carrying out itinerant work - deductions, allowances and reimbursements for transport expenses provides guidelines for establishing whether an employee is carrying out itinerant work. The following factors can indicate itinerant work.

Travel is a fundamental part of your employment

In Taylor v. Provan AC 194 Lord Simon said at 221:

...the obligation to incur the expense of travelling in question must arise out of the nature of the office or employment itself, and not out of the circumstances of the particular person appointed to the office or employed under contract of employment...

In FC of T v. Wiener 78 ATC 4006; (1978) 8 ATR 335 (Wiener's Case), a teacher was required to teach at a minimum of four different schools each day, and comply with a strict timetable that kept her on the move throughout each of these days. Smith J, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, concluded that travel was inherent in her employment because the nature of the job made travel in the performance of her duties essential.

'Web' of workplaces exists

If an employee performs work at a single site and then moves to other sites on a regular basis, it would be considered that a 'web' of work places existed. In Wiener's case, the taxpayer was required to attend four to five schools each day. This constituted a 'web' of work places.

TR 95/34 states that although an employee may perform duties at more than one work location, this fact in itself may be insufficient to constitute a 'web' of work places for the purposes of itinerancy. Each work place may be regarded as a regular or fixed place of employment. If the teacher in Wiener's case had attended only one school each day, each school would be regarded as a regular place of employment.

In Case R8 84 ATC 157; (1984) 27 CTBR (NS) 523 Case 59, the taxpayer was a nurse employed by an agency. She was on call and was required to report for work at various work locations for a day or longer periods. Even though she regularly worked at more than one location, the Board held that the taxpayer's travel pattern was not comparable to the facts in Wiener's case.

Continual travel from one work site to another

In certain work situations continual unsettled travel from one workplace to another is a common factor that has emerged from cases as being an indicator of itinerancy. TR 95/34 states that continual travel refers to the frequency with which an employee moves from one work site to another. It is envisaged that the employee regularly works at more than one work site before returning to their usual place of residence. If an employee stays at a particular work site for a short period, they may still be regarded as engaged in itinerant employment provided their usual pattern of work involves continual travel to more than one work site before returning to their usual place of residence.

In Case T106 86 ATC 1192 (Case T106), a taxpayer employed as an 'off-sider' in the building industry was continuously dispatched to sites at various locations. On any one day, it was not unusual for the applicant to attend two sites and he often attended different sites on successive days. The Tribunal agreed that the taxpayer's employment was of an itinerant nature.

Conversely, in FC of T v. Genys (1987) 17 FCR 495; 87 ATC 4875; (1987) 19 ATR 356 (Genys case), the Federal Court held that the taxpayer's employment was not itinerant. The taxpayer was a registered nurse who used an employment agency to seek relief work with various hospitals. She was not continuously employed by any one hospital. When a hospital was in need of additional staff they contacted the agency which would then contact the taxpayer. It was integral to the decision in this case that the taxpayer did not travel after the commencement of her duties. She merely travelled to work and home again.

Other Factors

Other factors discussed in TR 95/34 that may indicate itinerancy include:

● The employee has a degree of uncertainty of work location, that is no long-term plan or regular pattern of work exists.

● The employee’s home constitutes a base of operations

● The travel can be attributed to the transportation of bulky equipment rather than to private travel between home and work.

● The employer provides an allowance in recognition of the employees need to travel continually between different work sites

Home as a base of operations

An employee's home may constitute a base of operations if the work is commenced at or before the time of leaving home to travel to work and the responsibility for completing it is not discharged until the taxpayer attends at the work site.

The mere receipt of telephone calls from an employment agency or an employer is not sufficient to allow the home to be classed as a base of operations.

In FC of T v. Collings 76 ATC 4254; (1976) 6 ATR 476 the taxpayer was a highly trained computer consultant whose employment required her to be on call 24 hours a day. The Court held that, on the occasions the taxpayer returned to work after hours:

● she had commenced performance of her duties before leaving home and travelled to work to complete those duties. Her obligation was more than just being on stand-by duty at home; and

● she did not choose to do part of the work in two separate places. The two places of work were a necessary obligation arising from the nature of the special duties of her employment.

Transport of bulky equipment

A deduction may be allowable if the transport costs can be attributed to the transportation of bulky equipment rather than to private travel between home and work.

For this exception to apply the equipment must:

● be considered bulky, in terms of size, weight or shape

● be essential for the employee to perform their work

● be required by the employer to be transported by the employee

● have no secure area for storage at work.

If the equipment is transported to and from work by the employee as a matter of convenience or personal choice, it is considered that the transport costs are private and no deduction is allowable.

In FC of T v. Vogt 75 ATC 4073, 5 ATR 274 (Vogt's Case), the extreme bulk of the equipment was the decisive factor. The taxpayer was a professional musician who used his vehicle to transport large musical instruments and associated equipment from his home to his places of employment. Size alone does not determine if equipment is bulky. In Crestani v. FC of T 98 ATC 2219; (1998) 40 ATR 1037 (Crestani's Case), the tribunal was of the opinion a toolbox was 'bulky' because it was 'cumbersome' in the sense that it is not easily portable. The toolbox measured 57 cm x 28 cm x 25 cm and weighed 27 kg.

In Sciberras and Commissioner of Taxation [2011] AATA 509 (25 July 2011) the taxpayer was denied a deduction claimed for the cost of transporting bulky equipment to his place of work.

Mr Sciberras was a truck driver who drove from his home to the place where he would commence his truck driving duties. He claimed a deduction for transporting bulky equipment from his home to his place of employment on the grounds that he needed that equipment to perform his duty and would take it with him in his truck. The extra equipment consisted of tools, clothing and manuals and was in addition to the Personal Protective Equipment prescribed by his employer.

In the decision handed down in Sciberras’ case, Senior Member D Letcher, QC noted (at paragraphs 25 and 26):

A common thread in the cases where an exception to the general rule is found to exist is that the equipment is an essential part of the work being specialist tools suited to the task or items intrinsically involved in the work. In the case of Mr Sciberras the tools, clothing and manuals were not essentials used in the driving work, nor were they items without which the work could not be done, nor were they required by the contract of employment or provision of law.

The relevant exception to the general principle may be stated as follows (in the case of transport equipment) and satisfied if:

(a) It is an integral part of the income-earning activity;

(b) It is essential to the performance of the work;

(c) The expense is incurred as the only practical means of transporting it; and

(d) There is no secure alternative to transporting it.

The Tribunal found that for an item to be considered bulky in terms of it leading to a deduction for the cost of transporting it to and from a taxpayer’s home and place of work, all of the above criteria must be satisfied.

Question 1

Summary

The employee is not considered to be an itinerant worker.

Detailed reasoning

Where you are an itinerant worker, you can claim all travel expenses incurred in carrying out your itinerant work.

However in order to be considered an itinerant worker, your employment must have the characteristics or indicators of an itinerant worker. The characteristics and indicators of itinerancy are listed in TR 95/34.

The question of whether an employee’s work is itinerant is one of fact, to be determined according to individual circumstances and the nature of their duties.

We do not consider the employee’s current duties itinerant in nature because:

● Travel is not a fundamental part of his work,

● Though he works at multiple locations, this does not constitute a web of work places,

● Likewise, though he may visit multiple locations in one day, the pattern of work is more often settled rather than continuous travel, and

● His home is not a base of operations.

Travel is fundamental work duties

The employee provides services at various locations in the region where he is accredited to work.

The way his work is arranged means that for at least four days a week the employee will be at one location for the whole day. For at least one day a week he may work at two locations. Three days a week the employee’s work is arranged on a 4-week rostered basis. Two days a week, work will be arranged ad-hoc. In addition, the employee is on-call for unplanned or emergency surgeries.

On the way to or from work for the day, the employee may also visit patients at other locations for consultation.

Other work is completed at home, such as phone calls, administrative matters, professional development and some patient consultations over the internet or telephone.

The necessity to travel is not due to the nature of the services provided in themselves. The need to travel arises from the way the employee’s work is arranged, which is decided by the employee based on the work he arranges with clients.

The employee’s circumstances can be distinguished from Wiener's case as we consider that travel is not a fundamental part of his employment. While the employee does perform duties at more than one location, the employee generally travels to only one location in a workday, sometimes two, so it cannot be considered that there is a web of work places or that continuous travel between work sites is a part of his regular duties. There is a degree of uncertainty in regards to irregular list work, but the majority of work is arranged in advance on a 4-week rotational basis and it is known in advance which location the employee needs to attend. Additionally, for irregular work and on call work, it is also known in advance which location the employee will work at.

Home as base of operations

The employee’s circumstances can be distinguished from Collings’ case. In that case, Collings was on call 24 hours per day and the nature of the work required her to address issues immediately, from home if necessary.

Apart from the occasions when the employee has emergency on call work arranged with certain clients, the usual work commitments do not require the employee to be on call 24 hours per day. Most of the employee’s work is arranged in advance and performed at the work locations, with only ancillary duties being completed at home, out of necessity or convenience.

Because the employee’s main duties are performed at the work locations, and his work for the day is not commenced at or before the time of leaving home to travel to work, his home cannot be regarded as a base of operations. Likewise, the nature and extent of the activities undertaken at home are not sufficient to allow the home to be classed as a base of operations. (Occasions where the employee is on call for emergencies is addressed in question 6.)

Conclusion

Though the employee’s pattern of work has some characteristics common to itinerant work, on balance we do not consider his duties inherently itinerant.

Where the nature of employment is not inherently itinerant, travel may still be considered a business journey in some circumstances as discussed in the remaining questions below.

Question 2

Summary

Journeys between home and work are not attributed to the transport of bulky equipment but rather considered private travel.

Detailed reasoning

The Company’s provision of a motor vehicle permits the employee to carry with him several items of equipment including:

● frequently referred to books which are not available at the various work locations and are not available online

● preferred equipment which may not be available at all work locations.

The total weight of books and equipment is approximately 60kg.

There is no secure place to store the equipment at either the Group’s business premises or the various work locations.

The main bulk of the equipment is attributed to the books and one item of equiptment. The other items are relatively small and light and may reasonably be carried, therefore these items are not considered bulky.

Referring to Sciberras’ case, the equipment must not only be bulky but also be an essential part of the work being specialist tools suited to the task, without which the work could not be done. In this case, the books are considered bulky in terms of weight and size and being of a nature that is not easily transportable. However, reference books or manuals, though useful, are not considered essential to the employee performing their work.

For the other equipment, it has been stated that it is not available at all work locations. Therefore, it must be available at some or most locations, meaning this equipment is not necessary to be transported to each place of employment. Additionally, this equipment has been described as “preferred” equipment, indicating that the equipment is used by personal choice rather than necessity.

With these factors in mind, overall, it is considered that the main purpose of car travel is not attributed to the transport of the items of equipment but rather private travel between home and work.

Question 3

Summary

Trips between the various locations where the employee performs work is business use of the car.

Detailed reasoning

Travel between places of employment, or places of business, is generally accepted as business travel where the person does not live at any of those places and they travel to engage in income producing activities.

The employee performs work at various locations. Usually, the employee will work at one location per day. At least one day per week the employee may work at one location in the morning and another in the afternoon. Often, the employee will visit patients at a different location on the way to or from the location he will work at that day.

Travel between these locations where the employee performs work will be a business journey and not private use of the car.

Question 4

Summary

Trips between a work location and the business premises of the Group is a business journey.

Detailed reasoning

Travel between places of employment, or places of business, is generally accepted as business travel where the person does not live at any of those places and they travel to engage in income producing activities.

The employee performs work at various locations. The Company pays a service fee to the Group which performs administration services on its behalf. Once or twice a week the employee will visit the Group’s business premises to leave billing sheets and to collect other paperwork on behalf of the Company. The Group’s premises is considered a place of business.

Travel between the locations where the employee performs work and the Group’s business premises will be a business journey and not private use of the car.

Question 5

Summary

Trips between the employee’s home address and a location at which he performs work for the day, whether for regular lists or irregular lists, are not business journeys for FBT purposes.

Detailed reasoning

Travel between home and work is usually considered private and domestic in nature and is considered private use of a car for FBT purposes.

On occasions where the employee travels from home to the location where he will work that day, this is private use of the car and not a business journey.

Question 6

Summary

Trips between the employee’s home address and a location at which he performs work for emergency on call work are business journeys for FBT purposes.

Detailed reasoning

When on call for emergencies, the employee is required to provide emergency medical advice over the phone before traveling to the work location.

It is considered that the employee’s work commences when the employee receives the emergency call and the employee travels to complete the work. Therefore, the travel is a business journey. This also includes where the travel is to the work location from a hotel where the employee may be staying while on call.

Question 7

Summary

Trips between employee’s home address and the location he will work at on a particular day where he visits patients at another location on the way are business journeys.

Detailed reasoning

The employee regularly works at a single location for the day and sometimes visits patients at a different location on the way to or from the location he is working at that day.

The total journey from the employee’s home to the location for a patient visit and onward to the location where the employee will work that day is considered a business journey. This is because the work location constitutes a regular place of employment and the patient visit is made in performance of the employee’s duties at an alternative location and the employee does not merely perform incidental tasks enroute.

Question 8

Summary

Trips between employee’s home address and the Group’s business premises are not business journeys.

Detailed reasoning

Unlike the circumstances in question 7, visits to the Group’s business premises on the way to or from the employee’s home and work are not in performance of substantial employment duties, but merely dropping off paperwork, which is an incidental task performed enroute to the place of employment. Therefore, the total journey is not considered a business journey.

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).