Anders and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) - [2023] AATA 1471

Anders and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2023] AATA 1471 (31 May 2023)
Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number:2022/3566
Re:Timothy Anders
APPLICANT

AndCommissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D Mitchell
Date:31 May 2023
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
................................[SGD]................................
Member D Mitchell

CATCHWORDS
TAXATION – income tax – deductions – employee – work-related self-education expenses – in the course of deriving assessable – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)
CASES
Brimo v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 98 ATC 2338
Case J46 77 ATC 420
Case J47 77 ATC 423
Case R73 84 ATC 509
Case S1 85 ATC 101
Case S12 85 ATC 165
Case V1 88 ATC 101
Commissioner of Taxation v Day [2008] HCA 53; (2008) 236 CLR 163
Commissioner of Taxation v Klan (1985) 80 FLR 320
Commissioner of Taxation v Payne [2001] HCA 3; (2001) 202 CLR 93
Commissioner of Taxation v Smith (1978) 36 FLR 95
Commissioner of Taxation v Studdert (1991) 33 FCR 75
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis [2010] HCA 40; (2010) 241 CLR 443
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Finn [1961] HCA 61; (1961) 106 CLR 60
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Hatchett [1971] HCA 47; (1971) 125 CLR 494
Federal Commissioner of Taxationv Kropp (1976) 6 ATR 655
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena (1971) 2 ATR 541
Federal Commissioner of Taxationv Roberts (1992) 39 FCR 118
Magna Alloys & Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1980) 49 FLR 183
Ronpibon Tin NL & Tong Kah Compound NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1949] HCA 15; (1949) 78 CLR 47
Ting and Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 101 ATR 158
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D Mitchell
31 May 2023
INTRODUCTION

Mr Timothy Anders (the Applicant) is seeking review of an objection decision of the Commissioner of Taxation (the Respondent) dated 29 April 2022.[1]
[1] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T2, pages 3-6, Reasons for decision and T29, pages 158-159, Email from the Respondent to the Applicant’s tax agent dated 29 April 2022 with attachments.
The reviewable objection decision disallowed the Applicant’s objection to a Notice of Amended Assessment for the income year ended 30 June 2021 (the 2021 year). The reviewable decision was made on the basis that the Respondent disallowed work-related self-education expense deductions being claimed by the Applicant as he was not satisfied that a real and direct connection existed between the study and the Applicant’s work.[2]
[2] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T2, page 3, Reasons for decision.
ISSUES
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant has discharged his onus to prove that he is entitled to a deduction of $14,582.00 in relation to the Master of Public Policy and Management course subjects he undertook in the 2021 year.
To determine this issue, the Tribunal must consider whether the expenses are deductible in accordance with section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 1997).
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a qualified teacher who specialises in teaching music. The Applicant completed a Bachelor of Music – Music Performance, General in 2008 and a Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary) in 2013.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Supplementary T Documents, ST1, page 1, Music EDnet webpage entitled Music EDnet – Tim Anders, and ST2, page 4, Linkedin profile of Tim Anders.
Since 2015,[4] the Applicant operated Octopus Music offering music lessons for students in several Melbourne schools.[5]
[4] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Supplementary T Documents, ST2, page 4, Linkedin profile of Tim Anders.
[5] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Supplementary T Documents, ST1, page 1, Music EDnet webpage entitled Music EDnet – Tim Anders.
In the 2021 year, the Applicant was a casual teacher at The Lakes South Morang College, teaching music to students in prep to year 9.[6]
[6] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Supplementary T Documents, ST1, page 1, Music EDnet webpage entitled Music EDnet – Tim Anders.
On 12 March 2021, the Applicant commenced a Master of Public Policy and Management at the University of Melbourne (the Masters Course).[7]
[7] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T19, page 123, Applicant’s Witness Statement, paragraph 4.
The Applicant enrolled in Political Problems & Policy and Governance subjects and subsequently sought to claim a deduction for work-related study expense totalling $14,582.00[8] in relation to the subject tuition fees.[9]
[8] Noting that the Applicant sought to amend the deduction to $14,832.00 at audit.
[9]
On 7 September 2021, the Applicant lodged his 2021 year income tax return via his tax agent, Mr Jess.[10]
[10]
On 7 December 2021, the Respondent notified the Applicant and Mr Jess that his income tax return for the 2021 year was being audited.[11]
[11]
On 13 December 2021, Mr Jess provided details of the Applicant’s claimed deductions to the Respondent[12] with a cover letter that outlined:[13]
The taxpayer is a qualified school teacher.
In order to advance his prospects of promotion within the Education Department, the taxpayer undertook a Masters of Public Policy and Management.
The skillset derived from the Masters Degree will be used for his advancement to either Deputy Principal initially and the Principal with further management experience.
On the foregoing, the self education satisfies the criteria for upgrading current qualifications, improving specific skills and knowledge as a basis for further advancement in the Education Department and is therefore an allowable deduction.
[12]
[13]
On 14 January 2022, the Respondent issued the audit finalisation letter.[14] As a result, the Respondent amended the Applicant’s income tax return for the 2021 year to reflect that the claimed deduction of $14,582.00 in relation to self-education expenses was disallowed.[15]
[14]
[15] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T11, pages 70-106, Commissioner amended income tax return for the Applicant for the year ending 30 June 2021.
On 21 January 2022, the Respondent issued the Applicant a Notice of Amended Assessment for the 2021 year.[16]
[16] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T15, pages 113-116, Notice of Amended Assessment for the year ended 30 June 2021.
No penalties were applied by the Respondent.[17]
[17]
On 21 January 2022, the Applicant objected to the audit decision.[18] Attached to the Applicant’s objection was a letter from Mr Jess to the Respondent dated 17 January 2022, which provided:[19]
[18] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T16, pages 117-118, Objection.
[19] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T12, page 108-109, Email from the Applicant’s tax agent to the Respondent dated 17 January 2022.
The characterization of the expenditure and the basis of the expenditure have been incorrectly applied to the taxpayer’s circumstances.
The taxpayer is employed by the Education Department as a part time teacher.
The taxpayer undertook the course to broaden the taxpayer's skills and knowledge base to vastly improve the domain of subjects he is currently teaching and suitably qualified for which will result directly in the taxpayer to increase the engagement in his employment as a teacher.
The long term aim is to gain more teaching hours which improves his chances of further employment with the Department of Education. This will lead to stability in his teaching career with the possibility of moving into more senior roles in school leadership and management.
It is not a new role, as described in your correspondence, but the expansion of his current knowledge base to be able to teach more subjects and therefore create permanent employment opportunities in his current employment.
It also satisfies the cases presented in your correspondence and the Self-Education Expenditure by the taxpayer satisfies the following criteria to be an allowable deduction:
(a)The course maintains or improves the specific skills or knowledge required in the current employment of teaching; and
(b)Results in or is likely to result in an increase in income from the current employment.
The course will allow the taxpayer to be able to teach more subjects, generate more income and enhance his long term employment at senior levels of his employer.
On the foregoing basis, the Self-Education Expenditure is an allowable deduction and therefore the taxpayer’s assessment should not be amended.
On 5 April 2022, Mr Jess provided a synopsis prepared by the Applicant setting out the circumstances around the selection of the course and the outcomes it would help him achieve. The synopsis provided:[20]
[20] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T19, pages 122-124, Letter from the Applicant’s tax agent to the Respondent dated 5 April 2022.
[The Applicant] - Requested Study Information.
Through my current studies it is my intention to broaden my skills and knowledge that I might, in the immediate term vastly enhance the domain of subjects for which I am suitably qualified to teach in the public education sector, and longer term extend my career with the Department of Education at the school leadership, management and/or policy level.
In this era of COVID restrictions, casual teaching is simply not reliable as a source of income, and it is essential that I upskill to make myself a viable candidate for senior education and/or educational policy roles, as well as a more diverse selection of classroom positions. My studies, while ongoing, have helped me to secure a role on the committee of the local adult learning centre (PICAL) and I have secured interviews - though unfortunately no employment - with a number of local government and not-for-profit organisations. In the same time span my prior qualifications have, on their own, been largely redundant, save for casual teaching positions.
On Friday March 12 [2021] I commenced my Masters in Public Policy at the University of Melbourne as a part-time student. This course is described as follows:
The Master of Public Policy and Management is one of the oldest graduate programs in this field in Australia, with the University of Melbourne first bridging the needs of the profession and the emerging discipline almost 90 years ago. It has remained at the forefront of the discipline through consistent innovation in subject delivery and content and is notably one of the few graduate degrees in the country to combine expert training in public policy analysis and executive leadership and management. The course is structured around working professionals (both current and aspiring) and therefore emphasises flexibility and tailored options. While the focus is on the public sector, the private and community sectors are also examined in order to prepare graduates for the widest possible range of careers both in Australia and internationally. This international dimension is further emphasised by the diversity of researchers and practitioners teaching into the program and the unique subject
offerings.' ( subjects which I have studied in the relevant timeframe are as follows:
Governance -
This subject examines contemporary issues in governance in Australia and internationally. The subject critically examines both traditional and emerging governance models that have dominated recent public sector reform efforts in many parts of the world. The subject focuses on the implications of these changes for the effectiveness, accountability and legitimacy of contemporary democratic governance. The subject will combine theoretical work regarding the nature of contemporary governance with studies of current debates around specific governance initiatives. The subject will look at a range of governance models operating in contemporary society and the implications of emergent governance models for politicians, public officials, non-governmental actors and citizens and the relationship(s) between global influences and emerging governance frameworks.
Political Problems and Policy Responses
This subject is designed to introduce students to key ideas from political science, providing a foundation for further study in governance, public policy and public management and should be undertaken early in the 200-point Master of Public Policy and Management. Students will problematise policy issues and construct a range of possible policy responses based on fundamental political concepts such as rights, liberalism and democracy. We will consider how these concepts have and continue to shape the practice of politics and government in Australia and elsewhere. We will then focus in on the role and function of key political actors and institutions paying particular attention to how they influence and impact on public policy processes and outcomes. Upon completion of this subject, students will be familiar with the major theoretical concepts, institutions and actors in political science that are most relevant to public governance, public policy and public sector management.
On 29 April 2022, the Respondent disallowed the Applicant’s objection.[21]
[21] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T29 and T2, pages 158-159 and 3-6 respectively, Notification letter and reasons for decision.
On 29 April 2022, the Applicant lodged an Application for Review with this Tribunal.[22]
[22] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T1, pages 1-2, Application for Review.
On 6 December 2022, the Applicant provided a witness statement outlining:[23]
[23] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 50, pages 551-512, Statement of Timothy Anders.
1I am a secondary school teacher.
2I am passionate about teaching and the education system more generally.
3I have leadership aspirations in secondary school teaching.
4I commenced a Master of Public Policy and Management at the University of Melbourne in 2021 .
5My motivation behind undertaking the course was to advance my career opportunities in secondary school teaching, both in terms of the breadth of subjects which I am able to teach and in terms of my promotion prospects.
6I live in a regional area and have found it difficult to gain the hours of work in secondary school teaching which I desire.
7I have also found that my pathway to a leadership position has been thwarted by my lack of teaching opportunities.
8I enrolled in the course because it offers a range of subjects which I believe will enhance the breadth of my teaching opportunities and my management and leadership capabilities. The course also aligns with my educational philosophies (namely social equity, inclusion, governance and innovation).
9The range of subjects which I have studied so far have augmented my prior knowledge of pedagogical methods, State and Federal educational policy and the intersectional social pressures impacting young people and schools.
10I am seeking (and am confident that I will be able) to gain hours of work in teaching a range of music, business & commerce and humanities and subjects in 2023 as a result of undertaking the course.
11In the future, I aspire to move up the ranks in secondary school teaching into a leadership role and ultimately to become the Principal of a secondary school. I saw, and continue to see, the course as a necessary step for me in working towards this goal. I believe that I am increasingly well equipped to secure a school leadership role, and through this role to make a significant impact on my small regional community.
On 7 March 2023, a Hearing was conducted using Microsoft Teams. At the Hearing, the Applicant provided evidence under affirmation. The Applicant was represented by his tax agent Mr Jess. The Respondent was represented by Ms Lee, of Counsel.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES
The relevant law in this matter includes the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 1997) and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA 1953).
Where a taxpayer is dissatisfied with an objection decision made by the Respondent, they may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision or appeal to the Federal Court against it.[24]
[24] Section 14ZZ of the TAA 1953.
On application for review of a reviewable objection decision, the Applicant has the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive or otherwise incorrect and what the assessment should have been.[25] As such, to be successful in his application before this Tribunal, the Applicant must prove that he is entitled to the disputed claimed deductions.
[25] Section 14ZZK(b)(i) of the TAA 1953
The general deductibility provisions of the ITAA 1997 are the key provisions for consideration by the Tribunal in this matter.
Section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 relevantly provides:
General deductions
(1)You can deduct from your assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that:
(a)it is incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income; or
…
(2)However, you cannot deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that:
(a) it is a loss or outgoing of capital, or a capital nature; or
(b) it is a loss or outgoing of a private or domestic nature; or
…
[Emphasis in original]
Section 6-5(1) of the ITAA 1997 provides:
Your assessable income includes income according to ordinary concepts, which is called ordinary income.
[Emphasis in original]
It has been long settled that incurred “in” gaining or producing means incurred “in the course of” producing assessable income. The High Court in Ronpibon Tin NL & Tong Kah Compound NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1949] HCA 15; (1949) 78 CLR 47 explained at 57:
… it is both sufficient and necessary that the occasion of the loss or outgoing should be found in whatever is productive of the assessable income or, if none be produced, would be expected to produce assessable income.
In the Commissioner of Taxation v Payne [2001] HCA 3; (2001) 202 CLR 93 (Payne), the High Court at 100 provided that given the breadth of the phrase “assessable income”, it should be considered in terms of a taxpayer’s overall income producing activities:
Accepting, as one must, that "the assessable income" referred to in s 51(1) is a broad concept, it may well follow, as the majority of the Full Court said, that "[t]he relevance of the expenditure should be determined having regard to the overall income producing activities of the taxpayer, and not by reference to individual sources of income". That is not to say, however, that the kind of connection which s 51(1) requires between outgoing and income is other than the connection described as "incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income". The question is whether the outgoing was incurred in the course of gaining or producing actual or expected income. That is, is the occasion of the outgoing found in whatever is productive of actual or expected income?
[Emphasis added]
In regard to the question posed by section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, the High Court observed in the Commissioner of Taxation v Day [2008] HCA 53; (2008) 236 CLR 163 at 179 (Day):
Section 8-1(1)(a) is couched in terms intended to cover any number of factual and legal situations in which expenditure is incurred by a taxpayer. Its language and breadth of application do not make possible a formula capable of application to the circumstances of each case. Cases are helpful to show the connection found on the facts there present, but not always to explain how the search for the requisite connection is to be undertaken. Payne directs attention to the statement made in Ronpibon Tin, as to the question posed by a provision such as s 8-1(1)(a), as correct and appropriate to be applied. The question, as restated in Payne, is: "is the occasion of the outgoing found in whatever is productive of actual or expected income?" That inquiry will provide a surer guide to ascertaining whether a loss or expenditure has been "incurred in [the course of] gaining or producing … assessable income".

The test in section 8-1(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 is an objective test. It says nothing of purpose or motivation.[26] The reason or motive of the taxpayer incurring education expenses is not determinative of the question whether they were incurred in gaining or producing income.[27] However, where an expenditure is voluntarily incurred, “the purpose of incurring that expenditure may constitute an element of essential character.”[28]
[26]    Commissioner of Taxation v Studdert (1991) 33 FCR 75 (Studdert), 78.
[27]    Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis [2010] HCA 40; (2010) 241 CLR 443 at 456.
[28]    Studdert at 79, citing Brennan J in Magna Alloys & Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1980) 49 FLR 183 at 189.
Deductibility of self-education expenses has been extensively considered by the Courts. The applicable legal principles are not in dispute in this matter.[29]
[29]
The Tribunal agrees with and accepts the following summary of the authorities that deal with the deductibility of work-related self-education expenses:[30]
(a)A deduction is allowable for self-education expenses if the taxpayer’s income-earning activities are based on the exercise of a skill or some specific knowledge and the subject of self-education enables the taxpayer to maintain or improve that skill or knowledge (maintain or improve the skill or knowledge test).[31]
(b)A deduction is allowable for self-education expenses if the subject of self-education leads to, or is likely to lead to, an increase in the taxpayer’s income from current income-earning activities (increase in income from current income-earning activities test).[32]
(c)The fact that a study will enable a taxpayer to get employment, to obtain new employment or to open up a new income-earning activity (whether in business or in the taxpayer’s current employment) is not a sufficient basis in itself for self-education expenses to be deductible (new employment or income-earning activities test).[33]
[Emphasis in original]
[30]    Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 49, page 542, Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 49.
[31]    Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Finn [1961] HCA 61; (1961) 106 CLR 60 (Finn); Studdert.
[32]    Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Hatchett [1971] HCA 47; (1971) 125 CLR 494; Commissioner of Taxation v Smith (1978) 36 FLR 95.
[33]    Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena (1971) 2 ATR 541 (Maddalena); Federal Commissioner of Taxationv Roberts (1992) 39 FCR 118; Federal Commissioner of Taxationv Kropp (1976) 6 ATR 655.
Each case must be decided on its own facts.[34]
[34] Finn at 64 and 70.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
In addition to the summary and witness statement provided by the Applicant as outlined above, he also gave evidence at the Hearing under affirmation.
At the Hearing, the Applicant: [35]
[35] Transcript, pages 11-46.
·Said he was not currently enrolled in the Masters Course.
·Said that the Masters subjects he has completed have increased his knowledge base by giving him a good overview of the policy overlays that affect education.
·Said they had given him an insight into the governance skills, capabilities and mechanisms that he did not have before, which will be required for him to pursue his goal of educational leadership positions.
·Confirmed that he completed a Bachelor of Music in 2008 and a Graduate Diploma of Education in 2013.
·Said he finished in his role at Epping Secondary College at the end of 2020.
·Said that Octopus Music is an instrumental music program and the name of the creative business that he operates as a sole trader.
·Said that from around 2012, through Octopus Music, he has taught small group music lessons at primary schools as an external provider.
·Said that he started this business prior to getting his classroom qualifications and he maintains it as a side income and to support his creative pursuits while he and his partner have been in child rearing phase.
·Said that his work history since February 2012 was:[36]
[36] Transcript, page 22.
So, I’ve been a classroom music teacher and instrumental music teacher across both primary and secondary schools. I commenced with the Lakes College in South Morang and then to Epping Secondary College where I was from 2018 or 2019 up to 2020.
·Said that since 2020, he has done some casual teaching work and has predominately been a stay-at-home parent as well as running the instrumental music business through his ABN.
·Said that in 2021 and 2022, he had done some relief teaching but was predominately in a primary carer role.
·Said that in his role at the Lakes College between 2012 and 2017, he was a part-time classroom music teacher. He said he only taught subjects other than music on a fill-in basis if a teacher was away, but not as part of his teaching methods.
·Said that in his role at the Lakes College, he worked 3 or 4 days a week at times and taught students in prep to year 9.
·Said that in his role at Epping Secondary College between 2018 and 2020, he taught music to students in years 7 to 10, on a part-time basis for 4 days a week. He said that he only taught other subjects in an emergency fill-in situation.
·Said that after the end of the 2020 school year and for 2021 to 2022, he was not employed by any particular school, rather he was a relief teacher.
·Said that at the end of 2020, he became the primary carer for his daughter as his partner went back to work full-time and he worked when he could, doing relief teaching.
·Said that on average he probably worked a handful of days per term, so perhaps 3 to 5 days per term. Said that a 12 to 20 days a year estimate was reasonable.
·Said that teaching was not his primary objective at the time, so he was not working on a weekly basis.
·Said that during that period:[37]
[37] Transcript, pages 25-26.
So that was predominately primary schools and it was just generalist teaching so other teachers would plan from the curriculum and leave activities for teachers like myself to run.
…
...it was generally one day at a time. To me it was predominantly music and there was one week where the music teacher was on leave for some reason, and I think I did two or three days music classes at one school. But I was, you know, known as the music teacher who could fill in, so I tended to get those call when – when music teachers were away.
·Said his teaching classification since 2012 was classroom teacher.
·Said that he was presently employed part-time, three days a week at Newhaven Primary School. He said his role included 2 days of music and one day of classroom teaching. He said that for the one day of classroom teaching, he covers for a part-time teacher in a grade 5/6 classroom and that the other teacher puts together the lesson plans. He said he might be able to plan one of the lessons per week, starting next term to try and increase his experience and knowledge of the curriculum and to contribute.
·Confirmed that he has leadership aspirations in teaching with a preference for secondary school.
·Confirmed that he believes his lack of leadership opportunities have been diminished or thwarted by his specialisation in music.
·Confirmed that he commenced a Masters in Public Policy at the University of Melbourne on 12 March 2021.
·When asked to explain how he came to commence the Masters Course said:[38]
[38] Transcript, pages 34-35.
I knew that I would have a couple of years - well, it was our plan for my partner to return to work and for me to take over the primary carer role, at least until our youngest was in kinder. So during that time I wanted to do further study to make sure that I was still current and perhaps even more advanced, more employable, more knowledgeable and skilful when the time came to re‑enter the workforce. So that’s where the impetus to study came from. So, at that point I had a range of options to me, I had a range of options not available due to the nature of delivery, so I was limited, having moved regionally, to online courses. In this particular one I guess the executive leadership and management was really what I was after out of this one, and having started in this particular Masters, there were a range of subjects that appealed to me in terms of the nature of educational leadership. I’m not currently enrolled now that I’m back at work, but there are other subjects outside of that particular narrow qualification that I will seek to pursue as well.
·Said that if he could summarise:[39]
[39] Transcript, page 35.
... I would be seeking to re-enter the workforce after a relatively lengthy period off; re-entering the workforce at quite a high price due to my years of experience, and with very few formal leadership or management qualifications or experience to my name, I guess is probably the briefest way I could put my impetus to study.
·Said that he was anticipating his role as primary carer at home would extend until when his daughter began kindergarten which was at the beginning of 2023.
·Said that he had been fortunate to get a position that worked out with their kindergarten and care arrangements and once his daughter goes to school in 2025, he will have more days to offer the workforce.
·Said that from undertaking his study, he was hoping to re-enter the workforce at whatever level he could and then move through the roles of learning specialist and leading teacher and then at some point up to assistant principal.
·Said that he did not specifically seek guidance in relation to undertaking the Masters Course.
·Said that he did the two courses he did because that was what was on offer at the time and that what he hoped to gain at the end of his further study was a Masters in the Arts.
·When asked to elaborate on his statement where he had said, “In the same timespan, my prior qualifications have on their own been largely redundant save for casual positions”, said:[40]
[40] Transcript, pages 40-41.
Well I guess in short that I’ve not been able to secure – I’d only been able to secure, you know, causal teaching and relief positions. Not generalists – well, even at that point, music teaching positions.
·When asked to explain what he meant by the term generalist, said:[41]
[41] Transcript, page 41.
… at a primary level, that would be just being a classroom teacher that teaches, you know, all the subjects. Just in one classroom. At a secondary setting, I mean, you know, if no music positions are available, applying for say an English teacher and securing that or maths, numeracy or social studies positions.
·Said that he was motivated to undertake the Masters Course, with the view of obtaining a Masters in the Arts to expand the breadth of subjects he was able to teach in the humanities management type of subjects.
·When asked if he accepted that the two particular subjects in question, governance and political policy making may offer him limited advantage in terms of expanding his teaching capabilities in broader subjects and asked if what he was saying was that it was the whole of the Masters giving him a Masters in Arts that would boost his CV, said:[42]
That – yes, that’s the end goal. I – you know, subjects here and there have some limited application. And there are things that I can and have spoken to during interviews. But the broader masters framework is really what I’m pushing for as part of my leadership aspirations, if that’s a way to put it.
·When asked why he did not just study social studies or indigenous studies if that is what he was interested in teaching, said that they were secondary to his leadership aspirations. He said:[43]
... I guess my primary objective here is to be able to put myself in a position where I can take on those leadership roles in a tight regional field where, you know, school relationships are already established. There is not a huge degree of movement in the workforce. So the subject breadth is a secondary – that is, not to say inconsequential consideration.
·Said his VIT registration requirements were not a motivation for him undertaking the Masters Course.
[42] Transcript, page 42.
[43] Transcript, page 43.
Mr Jess also tendered witness statements from Ms Erin Aulich, Branch Secretary of the Australian Education Union, Victoria[44] and Mr Ross Talarico, teacher, head of music,[45] neither of whom were available to give evidence at the hearing. The Respondent raised concerns in relation to the relevance of those witness statements.[46] The Tribunal considers that the contents of those statements, whether accepted or not, do not assist the Applicant’s case and as such, it has placed no weight on their contents.
[44]    Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 51, page 553, Statement of Erin Aulich.
[45]    Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 52, page 554, Statement of Ross Talarico.
[46]    Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 49, pages 535-536 and 544-545, paragraphs 29-32 and 60 respectively, Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS
Mr Jess, on behalf of the Applicant, outlined his contentions in an amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 6 December 2022.[47] Mr Jess’s opening submissions at the Hearing was consistent with his written submissions.[48]
[47] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 48, pages 521-527, Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
[48] Transcript, pages 7-9.
Mr Jess outlined the Applicant’s contentions as follows:[49]
[49] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 48, pages 5-7, paragraphs 5.1-5.7, Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
5.Contentions
5.1.For the reasons which are outlined below the Applicant should be allowed a deduction for the self-education expenses in the amount of $14,582 (or some lesser amount) and a new amended assessment should be issued confirming the deduction.
5.2.The Applicant's self-education expenses are deductible because they have a relevant connection to the Applicant's current income-earning activities.
The Applicant is a casual secondary school teacher. As a result of the Applicant being underemployed and having found himself with limited career advancement opportunities, the Applicant commenced the Masters Course with a view to advancing his career opportunities in, and therefore future income derived from, secondary school teaching (both in terms of the breadth of subjects which he is able to teach and in terms of his promotion prospects).
For 2023, the Applicant is seeking, and is confident that he will obtain, hours of work in teaching a range of music, business & commerce and humanities subjects, as a result of undertaking the Masters Course. Accordingly, the Applicant's self-education expenses have the requisite connection to the Applicant's current income-earning activities. The self-education expenses are an allowable deduction on this basis.
5.3.The Applicant's income-earning activities are based on the exercise of specific knowledge and the Masters Course has enabled, and is enabling, the Applicant to improve that knowledge.
Secondary school teachers are generalists, particularly in regional areas (such as where the Applicant moved during the 2021 income year). Generally, teachers need to able to teach across multiple subject areas in order to gain meaningful hours of employment at a secondary school.
The Applicant is undertaking the Masters Course to improve his knowledge so that he is equipped to teach a wider range of subjects, including business & commerce and humanities subjects. As a result of the knowledge attained through the Masters Course, the Applicant is confident that he will be able to gain additional hours of work in, and therefore derive additional income from, secondary school teaching in his current regional setting. The self-education expenses are an allowable deduction on this basis.
5.4.The Applicant's self-education expenses are likely to lead to an increase in the Applicant's income from his or her current income-earning activities in the future.
As mentioned, the Applicant has been suffering from underemployment as a secondary school teacher. The Applicant is confident that the Masters Course will lead to him being able to gain additional hours of work as a secondary school teacher and therefore to derive additional income from secondary school teaching. For 2023, the Applicant is seeking, and is confident that he will obtain, hours of work in teaching a range of music, business & commerce and humanities subjects, as a result of undertaking the Masters Course.
The Masters Course will also improve the Applicant's promotion prospects in the realm of secondary school teaching. First and foremost, the Applicant is seeking to gain more hours of work in the classroom. However, after doing so and with further teaching experience, the Applicant strives to use his improved knowledge and skills derived from the Masters Course to move up the ranks at a secondary school.
The Applicant aspires to become a Deputy Principal of a secondary school following the completion of the Masters Course (and then to advance to Principal after acquiring further management experience). For the reasons mentioned above, the Applicant's undertaking of the Masters Course is likely to lead to an increase in the Applicant's income from secondary school teaching. The self-education expenses are an allowable deduction on this basis.
5.5.The Applicant is not pursuing the Masters Course to obtain new employment or to open up a new income-earning activity.
The self-education expenses are not incurred at a point too soon to be regarded as incurred in gaining or producing assessable income. As already stressed in this document, first and foremost, in undertaking the Masters Course the Applicant is seeking to gain more hours of work as a secondary school teacher.
The Applicant is confident that his studies will increase his level of employment in the classroom as early as next year. The Applicant is not undertaking the study to obtain employment in a new profession, occupation or field. The Applicant is undertaking the study with a view to increasing his hours of work as a secondary school teacher and improving his prospects of promotion within secondary school teaching.
5.6.If the Tribunal were to find that the Applicant has undertaken the Masters Course for both an income-earning purpose and for a private purpose (which is denied), it may be appropriate to apportion the self-education expenses between the purposes, noting that, if it is found that there is a private purpose (which is denied) and that purpose is found to be merely incidental to the main income-earning purpose, apportionment would not be appropriate.
In terms of the case law referenced in Section 3 of this document:
(a)Studdert supports the Applicant's case. Analogous to that case, the Masters Course is making the Applicant better equipped to perform his job as a secondary school teacher and better proficiency is a primary motivation behind the Applicant's undertaking of the Masters Course. Studdert also provides support to the contention that self-education expenses incurred with a view to enhancing promotion prospects within the Applicant's current field (being secondary school teaching) are allowable deductions.
Case Z42 supports the Applicant's case. Analogous to that case, the Applicant's self-education expenses are being incurred in maintaining and increasing his ability in his current employment as a secondary school teacher and therefore they are necessarily incurred in carrying on that employment.
(b)MI Roberts is distinguishable. In that case the taxpayer was retrenched by his employer in Australia and then moved overseas to undertake study at a formal institution. In the present case, the Applicant has at all times remained a secondary school teacher.
Justice Lee's obiter in Highfield supports the Applicant's case. The Applicant's self-education expenses are allowable on the basis that the Applicant is attempting to obtain additional hours of work within his current field of employment in secondary school teaching.
5.7.For the reasons outlined above, the Applicant should be allowed a deduction for the self-education expenses in the amount of $14,582 (or some lesser amount) and a new amended assessment should be issued confirming the deduction.

In closing submissions, Mr Jess, on behalf of the Applicant, contended that:[50]
·There is a clear nexus between the Applicant embarking upon the course and his work.
·The Applicant did his own analysis and he thought the course was appropriate for him to expand his ability to earn revenue.
·Whilst the Applicant changed his modality of teaching he did not fully remove himself from the Education Department at all times. He was still fully employed, he did not resign, he simply changed his employment modality which allowed him to do more study than he would have been able to do in his previous modalities.
[50] Transcript, pages 47-48.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Respondent sought to rely on the Amended Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions dated 30 January 2023.[51] Relevantly, the Respondent contended:[52]
[51] Transcript, pages 9-11 and 49 and Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 49, pages 528-550, Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions
[52] Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 49, pages 542-550, paragraphs 51-59, 61-74, Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
51The Applicant is a casual music teacher. He undertakes a Master of Public Policy and Management.
52Assessed objectively, ‘how the assessable income was (or was expected to be) gained or produced’ was by way of salary or wages in a public policy and management role.
53That is, the ‘nature and character’ of the outgoing is to obtain a Master in Public Policy and Management. The outgoing’s ‘connection with the operations which more directly gain or produce the assessable income’ would be any salary or wages earned by the Applicant from a public policy and management role.
54To the extent the Applicant’s motive is relevant, this is consistent with the Applicant’s asserted motive of ‘mov[ing] up the ranks in secondary school teaching into a leadership role and ultimately to become the Principal of a secondary school’. The Applicant ‘saw, and continue[s] to see, the course as a necessary step for me in working towards this goal’. Mr Talarico was ‘aware that … [the Applicant] has been pursuing his leadership aspirations in secondary school teaching through further study’.
55A move from a casual music teacher role into a leadership role such as Assistant Principal or Principal would constitute new employment under the new employment or income-earning activities test. This is because the leadership roles are different to the Applicant’s current role, e.g. the roles have different descriptions, tasks and duties/responsibilities, and remuneration rates. Further, individuals enter contracts of employment on appointment to principal and assistant principal positions (cf. teacher positions), which are tenured for up to five years. The leadership roles are different to the classroom teacher role, even if some Assistant Principals and Principals may also teach.
56That a leadership role is different to a teaching role is supported by Ting, in which the Tribunal held that the taxpayer’s ‘income-earning activities as a classroom teacher stand in contradistinction to those of a leading teacher, which is a management role … The evidence … establishes that employment as a classroom teacher is materially different from employment as a leading teacher. Promotion to the position of a leading teacher does not merely constitute increased income for the same income-earning activities; rather, it involves engagement in relevantly new income-earning activities for the purposes of s 8-1. Put simply, it means more pay for doing a different job’.
57Likewise, a promotion of a classroom teaching specialising in music to a leadership role such as Assistant Principal or Principal would constitute new income-earning activities for the purposes of s 8-1, i.e. ‘more pay for doing a different job’.
58Further, ‘[t]o the extent that the course would or might make the [A]pplicant more likely to obtain promotion to a position as [an Assistant Principal or Principal], that does not make the [A]pplicant’s course expenses deductible. In that respect the expenses were “incurred in getting, not doing” work; the expenses preceded the relevant income-earning activities and came “at a point too soon to be properly regarded as incurred in gaining assessable income”’.
59In the circumstances, it is contended that the Applicant has not discharged his burden of proving that he is entitled to a deduction in respect of the self-education expenses incurred under his Master of Public Policy and Management course.
…
61To the extent the Applicant claims that the Master of Public Policy and Management will ‘improve his knowledge so that he is equipped to teach a wider range of subjects, including business & commerce and humanities subjects’, he has not discharged his burden of proving that his expenditure on the Master of Public Policy and Management is productive of, or would be expected to produce, assessable income as a teacher in business & commerce and humanities subjects. In respect of any assessable income:
(a)actually produced since the subjects in question were undertaken in the 2021 income year, there is no suggestion, nor does the Applicant assert, that he has produced assessable income as a teacher in any subject other than music, as a result of the self-education;
(b)that would be expected to be produced, other than the Applicant’s asserted ‘confiden[ce]’ that he will gain hours of work in teaching other subjects in 2023, there is no evidence of the nexus between the subjects undertaken and the subjects the Applicant is purportedly seeking to teach. For example, there is no evidence on a) who would make the decision to offer teaching hours in business & commerce and humanities to the Applicant; and b) whether that decision-maker would offer such teaching hours to the Applicant because of the subjects he undertook.
62Assessed objectively, the occasion of the outgoing was not to produce additional assessable income from teaching business and commence, and humanities. It seems that if a music teacher wishes to teach, for example, business and commence, the teacher could undertake self-education in business and commerce. However, that is not what the Applicant did. Rather, he undertook subjects as part of his Master in Public Policy and Management.
63A mere possibility of gaining teaching hours in other subjects is not enough. The Applicant has not discharged his burden of proving that the occasion of undertaking a Master in Public Policy and Management was to produce assessable income as a teacher of business and commerce, and humanities.
64In any event, each case must be decided on its own facts. In this case, the Applicant a) is a music specialist, with formal qualification in music, and experience in both teaching and performing music; and b) since his registration with the VIT in 2012, has not taught any subjects other than music. He has only earned relevant income as a music teacher and not as a teacher in any other subjects.
65In the circumstances, a move from teaching music to teaching subjects not related to music (e.g. business and commerce, and humanities) would constitute a new activity under the new employment or income-earning activities test. This is consistent with the self-education deduction case of Case 5/2011 2011 ATC 1-032 (Case 5/2011), in which the Tribunal held that where a taxpayer lawyer specialising in dispute resolution in building and construction law seeks to expand into aviation law, it would constitute ‘a new activity’.
66The Applicant claims that teachers are generalists. It is submitted that the Applicant has not discharged his burden of proving that he is a generalist teacher. For example, there is no evidence that he taught any subject other than music in the 2021 income year (or in any other income year). Further, the Applicant asserts that he was studying the Master in Public Policy and Management ‘so he can become a generalist’ – if that’s the case, it is unclear how the Applicant could have already been a generalist in the 2021 income year.
67It may be that a teacher registered with VIT is legally permitted to teach any subject (though the Applicant has not discharged his burden of proving this). But that is not to the point.
[Footnotes omitted]
In closing submissions, the Respondent sought to rely on his Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions and further contended that:[53]
[53] Transcript, pages 49-53.
·The Applicant’s evidence was vague in respect of the nexus between any course or the subjects he undertook that are before the Tribunal and the subjects he wishes to teach or how what he was studying would help him secure work in teaching those other subjects.
·The Applicant conceded in his evidence that the two subjects in question have limited application for the broadening of the subjects’ motive.
·The role the Applicant was in, when he undertook the studies, was a relief teacher. The role he was aspiring to achieve with the studies was a leadership role in primary or secondary school. The cases tell us that self-education expenditure incurred in the course of changing employment or securing better employment is not incurred in the course of gaining or producing a taxpayer’s assessable income.
·In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena (1971) 2 ATR 541, a deduction for travel expenses and legal costs incurred by a professional rugby league footballer, who was also an electrician, in negotiating a contract with a new club was denied. Justice Menzies, with whom the other Members of the High Court agreed, said on page 549:
Does then the expenditure in question fall within the description of an outgoing ''incurred in gaining or producing'' his assessable income, or was it an outgoing ''necessarily incurred in carrying on a business''? I think not.
It is, I think, worthwhile looking at the taxpayer's earnings as an electrician to illustrate what I regard as the decisive difference to be observed here. Had the taxpayer claimed as a deduction the expenses of changing from one job to another as an employee electrician his outlay would not have been an allowable deduction. The expenditure would have been incurred in getting, not in doing, work as an employee. It would come at a point too soon to be properly regarded as incurred in gaining assessable income.
Likewise, the Respondent submitted that what the Tribunal has before it is a primary school relief teacher seeking to get employment in a leadership role in the education system, which is at a point too soon.
·As per Chief Justice Barwick in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena (1971) 2 ATR 541 on page 548:
The cost to an employee of obtaining his employment does not form an outgoing incurred in the course of earning the wages payable in the employment.
·Maddalena was followed in the cases of Commissioner of Taxation v Klan (1985) 80 FLR 320 and Commissioner of Taxation v Roberts (1992) 39 FCR 118 and establishes that an expenditure incurred with the aim of securing or improving the prospects of obtaining new employment, as is the present case, in a leadership role, is not incurred in the course of gaining or producing income.
·The income in the Applicant’s case is as a relief teacher in primary schools and therefore does not meet the requirements of section 8-1(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997.
CONSIDERATION
The Tribunal acknowledges and commends the Applicant in relation to his commitment to his family and his clear passion teaching and desire to make an impact on the education of children.
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant was open and honest in providing his evidence at Hearing. To that end, much of the evidence provided by the Applicant at Hearing was not previously before the Tribunal or known to the Respondent.
The evidence provided at Hearing by the Applicant in many ways did not accord with that filed before the Hearing or the contentions made at Hearing by his representative.
The evidence provided by the Applicant makes it clear that at the time he undertook the two subjects to which the claimed work-related study expense deductions relate:
·the work the Applicant was doing was that of a primary school relief teacher, predominately as “the music teacher who could fill in”;
·the Applicant had no intention of seeking further employment in the 2020 or 2021 school years other than, that of a relief teacher as his primary focus was being a stay-at-home parent and running his instrumental music business; and
·teaching was not the Applicant’s primary objective at the time of undertaking the study.
Further the Applicant’s evidence was that at the time of undertaking the study he was looking at the larger picture of a Masters course. It was not the specific course he had entered into that he was seeking to complete or that he saw as delivering his desired outcomes. Rather the Applicant said that he intended to complete a Masters in the Arts. He acknowledged that the two subjects he undertook were chosen in part due to lack of choice and to relate to his leadership aspirations.
The Applicant summarised why he undertook the study as being because he would be seeking to re-enter the workforce after quite a relatively lengthy period off (noting that his daughter would not commence school until 2025), at a high price due to his years of experience and with very few formal leadership or management qualifications or experience, so that was his impetus to study.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that undertaking a Masters course would assist him to expand the breadth of subjects he could teach, which while secondary to his goals of securing management positions, was not inconsequential.
The Applicant’s evidence made it clear that he was not a generalist classroom teacher and that he felt he had been pigeonholed as being a music teacher and that had impeded his advancement opportunities.
Based on the Applicant’s evidence at Hearing, the Tribunal does not accept the contentions made on the Applicant’s behalf by Mr Jess. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant changed his modality of teaching, from part time to casual to allow time for study or that there was a nexus between his study and his work as a casual relief teacher, specialising in music or that the Applicant was confident that he would secure hours of work in subjects in 2023 outside of music having complete the two subjects in question.
The evidence before the Tribunal makes it clear that the Applicant undertook study in the 2021 year to capitalise on his new working arrangements which allowed him to fulfil his family commitments while providing additional time that he could devote to study. This is, in all, a sensible and strategic approach, unfortunately however in order for a self-education expense to be deductible it must be incurred in gaining or producing the Applicant’s assessable income.
Based on the evidence outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the occasion of the Applicant’s outgoing, in this case the Masters course fees, cannot be found in his work as a relief teacher, being the role he held at the time that generated the assessable income of which he sought to rely on to create the required link.
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s evidence clearly outlined that his teaching experience up to the 2021 year was that of a music teacher. He was not a generalist teacher. The Applicant’s evidence was that when he undertook relief teaching he would discharge his duties by following the lesson plan previously created by the usual classroom teacher. The Applicant’s evidence was that he had not been successful in gaining employment in non-music teaching roles.
The Tribunal finds that the subjects undertaken by the Applicant in the 2021 year for which he is seeking to claim a work-related self-education expense deduction did not maintain or improve his skills or knowledge as either a music teacher or relief teacher (who was known as a music teacher). The Applicant’s evidence was that he acknowledged that the subjects in question were not that relevant to him being able to teach subjects outside of music, rather they had more application to his overall goal of obtaining a leadership role.
Further based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the subjects undertaken by the Applicant in the 2021 year were not likely to lead to an increase in the Applicant’s income-earning activity as a relief teacher or as a music teacher.
The Tribunal also considers that in incurring the claimed self-education expenses, the Applicant’s intention of being able to expand his ability to teach in subjects outside of music and to gain leadership positions relate to new employment or new income-earning activities and as such is not sufficient basis for those expenses to be deductible. This finding is consistent with a number of Tribunal cases.[54] Expenditure incurred with the aim of securing or improving the prospects of obtaining new employment is not incurred in the course of gaining or producing income.[55]
[54] Case J46 77 ATC 420; Case J47 77 ATC 423; Case R73 84 ATC 509; Case S1 85 ATC 101; Case S12 85 ATC 165; Case V1 88 ATC 101; Brimo v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 98 ATC 2338 and Ting and Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 101 ATR 158.
[55] Commissioner of Taxation v Klan (1985) 80 FLR 320 and Commission of Taxation v Roberts (1992) 39 FCR 118.
The Tribunal considers that like in the Maddalena case, the Applicant’s circumstances in the 2021 year relate to expenditure that was incurred in getting new work, not in doing his work as a casual relief teacher. As such the expenditure came at a point too soon to be properly regarded as incurred in gaining assessable income.
As such, the Tribunal finds that the course fees in relation to Political Problems & Policy and Governance, the subjects undertaken by the Applicant in the 2021 year was not incurred in the course of gaining or producing his taxable income as a music teacher or as a relief teacher who does not have any set classes, especially in circumstances where the Applicant himself said he was known as “the music teacher who could fill in”.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied for the purposes of section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, that the work-related self-education expenses of $14,562.00 claimed by the Applicant were incurred in gaining or producing his assessable income during the 2021 year.
The Tribunal, consequently, finds, that the Applicant has not discharged his onus to prove that the amended assessment for the 2021 year is excessive or otherwise incorrect.
Accordingly, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D Mitchell

...................[SGD]...................
Associate

Dated: 31 May 2023

Date of hearing: 7 March 2023

Representative for the Applicant:
Mr P Jess

PJA Accountants & Business Advisors

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms A Lee

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Taxation Office

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T8, pages 60-64, email from the Applicant’s tax agent dated

13 December 2021.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T3, pages 7-43, Income Tax Return for the year ending

30 June 2021.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T5, pages 46-55, email from the Respondent to the Applicant dated 7 December 2021 and T6, pages 56-57, email from the Respondent to the Applicant’s tax agent dated

8 December 2021.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T8, pages 60-64, email from the Applicant’s tax agent dated

13 December 2021.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T8, page 61, email from the Applicant’s tax agent dated

13 December 2021.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T9, pages 65-68, Email from the Respondent to the Applicant dated 14 January 2022 and T10, page 69, Email from the Respondent to the Applicant’s tax agent dated

14 January 2022.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, T Documents, T9, page 66, Email from the Respondent to the Applicant dated

14 January 2022.

Exhibit 1, Tribunal Book, Tab 48, Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at

[3.1]-[3.2] and [3.5] and Tab 49, Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraphs 34-50.

Date of hearing:	7 March 2023
Representative for the Applicant:	Mr P Jess PJA Accountants & Business Advisors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms A Lee
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Taxation Office