Case T17

Judges: KL Beddoe Ch

P Gerber M
GW Beck M

Court:
No. 3 Board of Review

Judgment date: 15 April 1986.

---

Dr P. Gerber (Member)

The taxpayer in these references was at all relevant times employed as a sound recordist with the

---

ATC 205

Australian Broadcasting Commission. In issue before the Board are several items; depreciation of a video recorder, a TV set and a stills camera in the tax years 1982, 1983 and 1984. In addition, a claim was made for three tapes costing $57 in all.

2. Dealing with the stills camera, it became clear from the evidence that it was acquired for purely private purposes; in the taxpayer's words: ``I bought it mainly for my own use''. The taxpayer deposed that some photos that he had taken in such places as New Zealand, were in fact used by the ABC promotionally and/or in their magazine. On these occasions the taxpayer received no emoluments for the use of these negatives. In the result, it cannot be said that the acquisition or use of the camera had any nexus with the taxpayer's work as a sound recordist, or the derivation of assessable income. The taxpayer is an enthusiastic amateur photographer, and that is not enough to qualify his claim for depreciation. This claim therefore fails.

3. Dealing with the TV set, it was admitted that the original acquisition of the set in 1980 or 1981 was for purely domestic purposes. Having acquired this TV set and occasionally wanting to watch programs which he had himself sound recorded, this led to some family disputation, since the family, consisting of a wife and at that time three teenage sons, showed little interest in news items and public affairs segments. This in turn persuaded the taxpayer to acquire a video recorder in 1982 so as to enable him to have those programs of special interest to him recorded whenever they clashed with preferred family viewing. Thus, it was deposed that it was important for the taxpayer to assess the quality of his work, to be able to hear what he had done, and that viewing his own recorded programs was not always possible since he might be sent out on other assignments on behalf of the Commission at various times when these particulars programs went to air.

4. The taxpayer's superior and head of the local television operation section was called and deposed that it was important for a sound recordist to watch his own work because it would ultimately make him a better sound recordist. He added that salary increases were awarded on a work-assessment basis. In the witness' words: it was part of the taxpayer's duties to listen to other people's work - that is other sound recordists who either worked in a similar capacity for the ABC or else worked for the one other commercial channel. He went on to say that having the equipment in issue was definitely an aid in the job, as well as a means of matching his excellence against his peers. He added that, ideally, all sound recordists should be given a video recorder, but that funding had restricted the provision of such equipment to the head of the operations section and to the two operation managers.

5. In the result we are satisfied that the use of both the TV set and the video recorder had some nexus with the taxpayer's employment as a sound recordist. At the same time, it was frankly conceded that both the TV set and video recorder had a substantial private user.

6. In the circumstances, the claim for each of these items, claimed on the basis of 50 per cent, ``domestic'' and 50 per cent ``professional'' is somewhat optimistic. Doing the best I can on the evidence, I have concluded that each had some business user and I would allow the following proportion: TV set 15 per cent; video recorder 25 per cent.

7. The remaining item, the three tapes, is allowable in full. The evidence here was that the tapes were kept for purely professional purposes and were not intended to be recycled.