Income tax : home office expenses, overseas travel expenses, entertainment expenses, clothing and dry cleaning claimed by magistrate
Please note that the PDF version is the authorised consolidated version of this ruling and amending notices.This document has been Withdrawn.View the Withdrawal notice for this document.
FOI status:May be releasedFOI number: I 1127196
It has been decided that no appeal will be lodged against a decision of Taxation Board of Review No. 2 dated 20 September 1984 in which the Board held (inter alia) that a magistrate/coroner was entitled to deductions in respect of the expenses of cleaning his home office and telephone calls. The decision was reported as Case R93 84 ATC 623 and Case 146 27 CTBR (NS) 1140.
3. One of the rooms in the taxpayer's home was exclusively used by him as an office. The office was used in attending to urgent telephone calls which, on average, occurred about 3 times per week and occasionally in the reception of police officers in relation to his duties.
4. The taxpayer undertook a 23 day tour of the USA and Canada in which he visited coronial complexes and entered into dialogue with people of authority on a range of professional topics. Upon his return he provided a written report to the Law Department on his findings.
5. The taxpayer claimed deductions for home office expenses (insurance, mortgage interest, cleaning and repairs), overseas travel expenses, entertainment expenses, clothing and dry cleaning expenses, local travel expenses and telephone calls.
6. The Board held that the home office expenses were not allowable deductions except for a proportion of the expense of cleaning the taxpayer's home which was deductible according to the principles enunciated in FC of T v Faichney 72 ATC 4245, 3 ATR 435. No part of the amount claimed for overseas travel was allowed as a deduction - the additional knowledge acquired did not assist the taxpayer in securing either a higher position or an increase in salary. Furthermore, the trip was not part and parcel of his employment. The evidence adduced indicated that the expenses were essentially of a private nature.
7. It was also found that no amount was allowable for entertainment expenses, clothing and dry cleaning expenses and local travel expenses. The position of coroner required the taxpayer to deliver lectures to various groups and the expenses associated with attending these functions were deductible in character. However, the taxpayer failed to adduce evidence as to the quantum of this expense.
8. The Commissioner's representative conceded at the hearing that the cost of telephone calls, to the extent that they were incurred in the course of carrying out the duties of coroner, was deductible in terms of sub-section 51(1). An amount of $12 was allowed by the Board for this expense in the 1980 income year.
9. To the extent that the references were decided against the Commissioner, the decision reached by the Board was open to it on the evidence adduced at the hearing. The decision applies the law as it is understood by the Commissioner to the facts established before the Board and no change in assessing policy is necessary.
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
13 November 1984
NO J35/1051 P4 F22-23 80/5781
BO AF 1867 Pt 7
Date of effect:
Date original memo issued:
26 October 1984
HOME OFFICE EXPENSES
OVERSEAS TRAVEL EXPENSES
84 ATC 623
27 CTBR (NS) 1140
FC of T v Faichney
72 ATC 4245
3 ATR 435
© 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).