Phone: (03) 9563 4688

Email: office@aubreypaton.com.au

Address: 17D Chester Street, Oakleigh VIC 3166

Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
ATO clears up FAQs about Single Touch Payroll
GST reporting: common errors and how to correct them
LRBAs, guarantees in need of review after property market falls
Victorian Property Valuation Cycle
Australia - toward EOFY 2019
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) expects 200,000 to miss out on refunds by failing to lodge
Biggest personal tax cuts in a decade a priority for Government
Government rules out GST changes following ATO report
ATO issues warning after ‘unprecedented’ spike in impersonation scams
Crypto transactions in ATO sights with new data-matching program
Government to establish $2 billion fund for small business lending
Small business corporate tax rates Bill is now law
ATO to double rental deduction audits to 4,500
ATO set to issue excess super contribution determinations
How's Australia going as we approach the election?
Single Touch Payroll (STP) is compulsory for all small businesses.
Federal Budget 2019 - Overview
How the 2019 Federal Budget affects you
FBT Reminder – Odometer Reading
‘Big awareness push’ underway as STP deadline approaches
GST collection on overseas goods at 300% of forecasts
The problem with getting to 53 years of age.
Lost Beneficiaries
New quarterly STP reporting method for closely held payees revealed
Some Australian figures to help on Budget night.
Employers hit with rolling SG audits as ATO toughens stance
Resources to help understand and implement Single Touch Payroll (STP)
Big fines, prison on the cards as new SG penalties introduced
Articles archive
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 4 October - December 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 1 January - March 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 1 January - March 2006
Quarter 4 October - December 2005
Quarter 3 July - September 2005
Work Related Deductions – Personal Care Services
Has the scope range of deductions expanded for work related claims?

A recent case concerned whether expenditure incurred by a tax payer with a disability was entitled to a deduction for employing an assistant to assist her in conducting her employment activities.  The tax payer was engaged as a law clerk and had physical disabilities that prevented her from typing and handling files etc.

A personal care worker was engaged to attend to some of the work functions, such as typing, photocopying, handling files and moving items on the desk, but also providing some personal care assistance.

In the words of the judgement "the administrative assistant is basically performing the role that legs, hands and fingers play for able bodies (sic) legal clerks and lawyers".

The tribunal considered that seven-eights of expenses were fully deductible after a private ruling application was in the negative.  The one-eight was attributed to personal hygiene and care.

The view was that the non-personal services provide by the attendant involved outgoings incurred to enable the tax payer to undertake her employment activities and accordingly deductible under the normal deduction provisions.  The expenses included wages, superannuation, advertising, insurance and training of the assistant.

The Commissioner has indicated that he accepts the tribunal's decision.

The tribunal also indicated that despite expenses being claimed under the general deductions, they may also be claimed under the medical rebate provisions.

The decision is not one that is considered to permit employees to claim deductions for delegating their work, merely the principle is reaffirmed that deductions need to be incurred for the purpose of generating assessable income.

 

 



18th-September-2008