| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication.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: 1012812415897
Ruling
Subject: Work related expenses - clothing - conventional
Question
Are you entitled to a deduction for the cost of running shoes worn for work?
Answer
No
This ruling applies for the following period:
Year ended 30 June 2015
The scheme commences on:
1 July 2014
Relevant facts and circumstances
You are an employee and have purchased running shoes.
You only wear the running shoes for work purposes.
You are supplied with a uniform by your employer.
You have requested suitable footwear be provided by your employer, however this has not occurred.
Relevant legislative provisions
Income Tax assessment Act 1997 section 8-1
Reasons for decision
Section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) allows a deduction for all losses and outgoings to the extent to which they are incurred in gaining or producing assessable income except where the outgoings are of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt income.
Taxation Ruling TR 97/12 addresses work related expenses and deductibility of expenses on clothing and explains that the cost of conventional clothing is usually not considered to be an allowable deduction as there is insufficient connection between the expenditure and the income earning activities of the taxpayer. The expense is normally characterised as private in nature.
The fact that the expense is incurred at the employer's direction does not convert the essential character of that expenditure from a private to a work related expense [FC of T v Cooper (1991) 29 FCR 177;91 ATC 4396;(1991)21 ATR 1616 and Mansfield v FC of T 96 ATC 4001;(1996) 31 ATR 367].
TR 97/12 provides that expenditure on the following types of clothing is considered to be deductible:
• occupation specific clothing
• compulsory uniform/wardrobe
• non-compulsory uniform/wardrobe
• protective clothing and footwear
In TR 97/12 at paragraph 66, occupational specific clothing is described as clothing that distinctively identifies the wearer as a person associated with a particular profession, trade, vocation, occupation or calling. Examples given are a cleric's ceremonial robes, a barrister's robes, a chef's chequered trousers and a nurse's traditional uniform.
In your case you have purchased footwear of a kind that may normally be worn. It is not occupational specific as described in TR97/12.
There is no distinguishing aspect to the footwear; you have purchased conventional or ordinary footwear from a retail store. As the shoes are considered ordinary footwear, it is not considered protective.
We acknowledge that you may only wear these shoes for work purposes and not personal use; however this does not alter the conventional nature of the footwear.
As the shoes are considered conventional or ordinary footwear, the cost of the shoes is a private expense and as such is not an allowable deduction.