| «‹ December 2014 ›» | | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
|
2013 年 5 月 10 日 星期五  |
| Court orders Tax Office to allow deductions for slip |
分類: 未分類 |
ourt orders Tax Office to allow deductions for slip
In a recent judgment handed down by the Federal Court the Australian Tax Office's interpretation of the tax act was proven to be faulty. The test case related to a claim by outdoor workers for sun-protection products, In its judgment! the court ruled that the Tax Office had been wrong to disallow deductions for the cost of sun-protection products!
This case highlights a weakness of the tax system where the Tax Office administers the tax act by issuing rulings and determinations upon which taxpayers are supposed to rely, The problem is that when there is doubt the Tax Office will interpret the legislation in most cases to the detriment of taxpayers!
This recent case is not an isolated incident! A prime example was in the mid-1980s, when the Tax Office overtaxed people who received lump sum payments after losing their jobs, This was done despite the explanatory notes that accompanied the legislation clearly not supporting the ATO's position! In this case the Treasurer of the time had to have retrospective legislation passed to force the ATO to correctly ray ban wayfarer sunglasses interpret the relevant section of the tax act,
At the heart of a lot of the problems are two main sections of the tax act. The first section in general terms states that for a cost or expense to be tax deductible it must have been paid so that the income could be earned. In the past this has meant an employee who chooses to pay for something, but is not required by their employer to do so, does not get a tax deduction.
The second section disallows a tax deduction for items that are personal and private in nature, For example. as almost everyone is required to wear clothes, a tax deduction is not allowed for clothes that can be worn outside of work.
Where an employer requires employees to wear a distinctive uniform the costs associated with that clothing will be tax deductible!
Taking these two basic principles of taxation, it is hard to understand how the Tax Office formed the opinion that sun-protection products were not tax deductible! Health and workplace safety regulations require employees who work outdoors to apply sunscreen and wear hats and ray ban wayfarer 2140 sunglasses, Clearly when this is the case! and an employee has to buy any of these items, it would have been reasonable to be given a tax deduction for the amounts paid!
The Tax Office classed sunscreen as a cosmetic and personal grooming item that was private in nature and not tax deductible, It took this view despite having previously lost a court case where a flight attendant sought to have a a tax deduction allowed for moisturisers and rehydrating hair conditioners,
In that case the court held that as the pressurisation of the cabin at altitude caused dehydration, a tax deduction was allowable for moisturisers and hair conditioners, It defies logic for the Tax Office to accept that the cabin of an aircraft is a harsh environment, with dry skin and hair being the result. while denying deductions to outdoor workers who face an increased risk of cancer by not using sun-protection products!
In accepting the latest decision by the Federal Court, the Tax Office has detailed two ways in which a claim can be made for sun-protection products, Under the first method taxpayers can claim wholesale ray ban wayfarer sunglasses up to $85 for the 2002 tax year even if they have not kept receipts, To be eligible for the deduction the taxpayers must have bought the sun-protection products and have been required to work in the sun for all or part of the day,
In addition taxpayers who had sun-protection expenses in the past can claim a maximum of $85 a year for up to four years! The full amount can be claimed on their 2002 tax return. For eligible taxpayers this would mean a total tax deduction in the 2002 year of $425, Anyone who wants to claim more than the $85 a year must be able to provide evidence to justify their claim,
When the actual expense method is used taxpayers must lodge a request for each of their previous tax assessments to be amended instead of making the claim on their 2002 return!
By law a taxpayer cannot seek to vary more than four years of tax assessments, The Tax Office has issued rulings and determinations as far back as 1993 that stated the cost of sun-protection products was not tax deductible. It is composed by wudideshuaige xuxiaobu 2013-05-10 .
|
|
