Fraser and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

[2025] ARTA 2153

Fraser and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2025] ARTA 2153 (6 October 2025)

Applicant:Adrian Fraser

Respondent:  Commissioner of Taxation

Tribunal Number:                2024/3380

Tribunal:General Member C Willis   

Place:Melbourne

Date:6 October 2025  

Decision:The Tribunal varies the Objection Decision dated 1 March 2024 under review to recognise the following items as creditable acquisitions for the purposes of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth):

1.    The purchase from ‘Apple’ in the invoice dated 23 November 2022 in the amount of $229.95.

2.    The purchase from ‘Apple’ in the invoice dated 23 November 2022 in the amount of $219.00.

3.    The purchase from ‘Spreadshirt’ in the invoice dated 22 February 2023 in the amount of $829.61, but only to the extent that the goods are described as branded with the ‘assemble’ logo.

The Tribunal otherwise affirms the Objection Decision.

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

General Member C Willis

Catchwords

TAXATION – Goods and services tax – video production enterprise – construction of office – purchase of furnishings, appliances, equipment tools and other items - purchase and use of vehicles - entitlement to input tax credits – whether creditable acquisition – whether creditable purpose – whether private or domestic use - decision affirmed  

Legislation

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) sections 11-5, 11-10, 11-20, 29-10.
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) section 14ZZK

Cases

Ell v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 71
R.V. Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd as Trustee of the R.V. Unit Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1169
Tweddle v Commissioner of Taxation (1942) 180 CLR 3.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Introduction

1. Mr Adrian Fraser (the Applicant) carried on a business of video production and content creation, mostly via the YouTube platform.  The Commissioner of Taxation (the Respondent) has rejected the Applicant’s claim for input tax credits under the goods and services tax (GST) legislation in relation to certain purchases made during the monthly tax periods from 1 May 2022 to 31 May 2023 (the ‘Relevant Tax Periods’).

2. The Applicant registered for GST on 22 January 2020, with effect from 1 January 2020.  He also obtained an Australian Business Number (ABN).  He operated as a sole trader until July 2023. 

3. Three YouTube channels (the ‘Three YouTube Channels’) were identified as operated by the Applicant during the Relevant Tax Periods.[1] A fourth YouTube channel (the ‘Fourth YouTube Channel’) was identified by the Applicant as having been acquired by him prior to or during the Relevant Tax Periods although no content has been posted by the Applicant to this channel.

   [1] The YouTube channel addresses were provided but for present purpose the three channels can be identified as @Officialillusive, @wildmoments and @fantasticfreakouts.

4. The Applicant lives and works in Queensland.  His parents own a property on which they have lived for some years (the ‘West Woombye Property’) and where the Applicant also resided prior to purchasing his own home.  The Applicant also said that he used a granny flat (the ‘Granny Flat’) on the property as a temporary office for his business.  More recently a further building was constructed on the property (the ‘Building’) which the Applicant said was intended as a permanent office space for him. 

5. During the Relevant Tax Periods the Applicant owned several vehicles, at least one of which he said he used for business purposes. 

6. On 5 May 2023 the Applicant purchased a 2022 Ford Ranger (the ‘Ford Ranger’) which he said was to be used as a prop for proposed video content for the Fourth YouTube Channel.

7. In November 2023 the Applicant cancelled his ABN and GST registration relating to his business in his capacity as a sole trader with effect from 30 June 2023.[2]  A trust with a corporate trustee was established and registered for GST with effect from 1 July 2023.  The Applicant says that this is the entity through which the business is now conducted.

   [2] ST1, ST2. The reason given for the cancellation was ‘enterprise ceased.’ A reference in this decision to ‘T Documents’ is a reference to the documents that the Respondent was required to file with the Tribunal under section 37 of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), as modified by section 14ZZF of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth). The T Documents were marked as ‘Exhibit 2.’

8. During the Relevant Tax Periods the Applicant made purchases of various goods and services, including furniture and electrical equipment, construction materials, tools, fuel, travel and insurance in relation to which he claimed input tax credits.  This also includes expenditure relating to the purchase of the Ford Ranger.  The Applicant also claimed input tax credits in relation to purchases made by his father, which he said were made on his behalf. 

9. The Applicant has provided a significant volume of receipts and invoices as evidence of these purchases and has prepared a spreadsheet summarising the items of expenditure (the ‘Receipt Summary Spreadsheet’).[3]

   [3] An initial version of the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet was included as an exhibit to the Applicant’s first affidavit dated 4 November 2024, with an updated spreadsheet attached to his second affidavit dated 14 February 2025.  A third updated version was provided to the Tribunal on the first day of hearing and marked as ‘Exhibit 1 – Revised Schedule.’ This is the version of the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet referenced by the Tribunal in this decision.

   Audit and review processes of the Respondent

10. On 7 June 2023 the Applicant lodged business activity statements (BAS) for the monthly tax periods from 1 April 2022 to 31 May 2023.  The Applicant claimed input tax credits in each of these BAS.  It is not disputed that any supplies made by the Applicant were export sales which were GST free.  Therefore the net amount for GST in each period generated a refund, with the refunds from these BAS totalling $40,548.

11. On 20 June 2023 the Respondent advised that it was commencing an audit of the Applicant’s BAS due to what it perceived as an unusual pattern of refunds.

12. On 26 June 2023 the Applicant made a voluntary disclosure identifying certain input tax credits that he was no longer claiming.[4] 

    [4] The Applicant advised the Respondent that he had incorrectly assumed that invoices from a particular contractor were GST inclusive but had discovered that the contractor was not registered for GST, such that the prices in those invoices were GST exclusive:  T6.1.

13. The Respondent advised the Applicant of the finalised audit outcome on 24 August 2023, with $36,449 of input tax credits remaining in dispute.  The Respondent’s position was that none of the purchases were made for a ‘creditable purpose’, not having been acquired for the purpose of carrying on an enterprise, and that some of the purchases were considered as being for private use.  The Respondent decided not to impose penalties on the basis that the Applicant had made ‘mistakes’ on his BAS and instead provided him with information about preventing future mistakes.

14. On 25 August 2023 the Respondent issued a notice of amended assessments of net amounts for the thirteen Relevant Tax Periods (the ‘GST Amended Assessments’).[5]

    [5] T20.2. 

15. On 23 October 2023 the Applicant lodged an objection (the ‘Objection’) against the GST Amended Assessments.[6]   In his Objection the Applicant referred to his need for an office space that was suitable for his business, identified log book records as supporting business use of vehicles, stated that trips to various retailers were made to purchase items crucial to his business, and explained how various purchases were for use in his office space.  He denied that any of the purchases were for private use. He also stated that the Ford Ranger was purchased explicitly for the production of a new YouTube channel.

    [6] T20.1. The Objection was lodged on the Applicant’s behalf by his accountant, Grow Accounting.  The Objection is stated to cover the monthly tax periods commencing 1 April 2022 although the period 1 April to 30 April 2022 was not the subject of the GST Amended Assessments.

16. On 1 March 2024 the Respondent issued an objection decision (the ‘Objection Decision’) disallowing the Objection.  The Respondent’s position was that:

    (a)The Applicant had not established a creditable purpose for most of the purchases acquired.

    (b)The majority of the work for the Applicant’s business was done overseas such that the scope of work in Australia did not require a large furnished office. 

    (c)The expenses claimed by the Applicant in relation to the building of an office were not the type of expenses claimed by persons engaged in producing online content relating to motor vehicles.

    (d)Furniture and appliances which the Applicant said were purchased for his office were not creditable acquisitions.  The Respondent also viewed many of these items as being for personal use.

    (e)The Applicant could have leased an existing property for his office rather than spending time and money on planning and building the Building on the West Woombye Property.

    (f)In relation to vehicle expenses[7] (such as petrol, insurance, parts and tools) the vehicle usage was mainly for purchasing materials to build the Building and not as a tool for work in relation to content creation. 

    (g)The Respondent could not confirm that the Three YouTube channels, which were created in America in 2015, belonged to the Applicant. 

    (h)The status of the Fourth YouTube Channel, which was created in America in 2006 and had no content, was also unclear.  The Respondent was not satisfied that the Ford Ranger was a creditable acquisition and expenses relating to the Ford Ranger could not be claimed.

    [7] These are vehicles other than the Ford Ranger which was considered separately.

    Application to Tribunal

17. On 14 May 2024 the Applicant lodged an application for review of the Objection Decision with the Tribunal.  The Applicant said that the amounts he had claimed related to purchases made for a creditable purpose.  Attached to the application was a statement which repeated the Applicant’s grounds for his Objection.[8]

    [8] T1.0 and T1.1.

18. In an Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 14 February 2025 the Applicant identified additional purchases (that is, additional to those identified during the Objection process) in relation to which he claimed input tax credits.  The Respondent referred the Tribunal to the requirement for the Applicant to seek leave from the Tribunal to rely on grounds other than those stated in the Objection.[9]  The Applicant contended that claiming input tax credits on these additional purchases did not represent an expansion of the grounds of objection.[10]  In any event the Respondent did not oppose a request for leave to extend the grounds of the Tribunal’s review in this regard.[11] 

    [9] See paragraph 11 of the Respondent’s Further Amended SFIC dated 29 November 2024, referring to paragraph 14ZZK(a) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).  Annexure C to that SFIC contains a summary of additional purchases as identified by the Respondent.

    [10] Paragraph 33 of the Applicant’s opening submissions dated 28 March 2025.

    [11] Paragraph 113 of the Respondent’s closing submissions.

    RELEVANT LAW

19. Division 11 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) (the GST Act) contains provisions relating to creditable acquisitions. Section 11-20 provides that an entity is entitled to the input tax credit for any creditable acquisition that it makes.

20. A ‘creditable acquisition’ is defined in section 11-5:

    You make a creditable acquisition if:

    (a) you acquire anything solely or partly for a *creditable purpose; and

    (b) the supply of the thing to you is a *taxable supply; and

    (c) you provide, or are liable to provide, *consideration for the supply; and

    (d) you are *registered, or *required to be registered.

21. Section 11-10 provides that an ‘acquisition’ means ‘any form of acquisition whatsoever’, including an acquisition of goods or services.

22. Section 11-15 sets out the meaning of the term ‘creditable purpose.’  An entity will acquire a thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that the entity acquires it in carrying on its enterprise:  subsection 11-15(1).  However an entity does not acquire a thing for a creditable purpose to the extent that the acquisition is of a private or personal nature:  paragraph 11-15(2)(b).[12]

    [12] There are other exclusions to the definition of creditable acquisition in section 11-15 which are not relevant to the present circumstances.

23. Division 9 of the GST Act sets out provisions relating to ‘taxable supplies’ and Subdivision 9-A defines this term and the criteria for a taxable supply. The term ‘consideration’ is defined inclusively in section 9-15.

24. Where an entity accounts on a cash basis, the input tax credit for a creditable acquisition is attributable to a tax period to the extent that the consideration provided by the entity for that acquisition is provided in that tax period:  subsection 29-10(2).

25. An input tax credit will not be attributable to a tax period where the entity does not hold a tax invoice for the creditable acquisition at the time of lodging their BAS for the period:  subsection 29-10(3).

    OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE

26. A feature of this case is that despite the volume of documentation filed with the Tribunal, the timing and nature of key facts and events are highly disputed.  Subject to the discussion below about a handful of purchases made by the Applicant’s father, the Tribunal understands that it is not disputed that the Applicant made the purchases set out in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet (as evidenced by the receipts and invoices provided by the Applicant).  The issues in contention relate to the characterisation of the purchases, and in particular whether they constitute ‘creditable acquisitions.’  This requires an understanding of the nature and scope of the Applicant’s business or enterprise, the context of each purchase and the relationship of the purchase to the Applicant’s enterprise.

    Documentary evidence

27. In addition to the receipts and invoices summarised in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet, the Tribunal was provided with documents including copies of:

    (a)Log book records relating to various vehicles owned by the Applicant and photographs of odometer readings.[13]

    (b)Bank statements of the Applicant and his parents.[14]

    (c)Agreements between the Applicant and a multi-channel network entity, and payment statements outlining payments to the Applicant under these agreements.[15]

    (d)Photographs of the Building.[16]

    (e)A document described as a lease agreement between the Applicant and his parents.[17]

    (f)Documentation from the supplier of the framework for the Building.[18]

    (g)Extracts of records relating to the Applicant’s ABN registration.

    [13] T15.1 to T15.6, ST4.1.

    [14] T18.19 to T18.21, ST4.2 to ST4.28.

    [15] T7.2 to T7.14, T18.1 to T18.3.

    [16] T16.1.

    [17] T18.4

    [18] See AF-2 to Applicant’s first affidavit, T8.11, T8.16.

28. Together with additional documents annexed to witness affidavits, these materials are discussed further below.

    Evidence of the Applicant

29. The Applicant filed three affidavits affirmed on 1 November 2024, 14 February 2025 and 29 May 2025[19] in which he described how he started his business, the work that was undertaken in the course of his business activities, the construction of the Building and the circumstances surrounding the Fourth YouTube Channel and Ford Ranger.  This included an explanation of (and copies of) the various receipts and invoices provided as evidence of the creditable acquisitions claimed by him.

    [19] Marked as Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

30. Also in his second affidavit the Applicant identified refunds that he had received in relation to some items of expenditure for which he had previously claimed input tax credits, such that he was not entitled to the full amount of input tax credits arising from the initial purchase.[20]

    [20] See paragraph 8 of the Applicant’s affidavit dated 14 February 2025 which identifies a part and an accessory purchased in relation to the Ford Ranger, and a storm pit grate purchased in relation to the Building.

31. In his third affidavit the Applicant stated that he had reimbursed his father or parents for three purchases of concrete in relation to the construction of the Building.  The Applicant said that his parents purchased the concrete on his behalf but all reimbursements were made with funds from his personal bank accounts.  Similarly, where his father had an account with a supplier such as Bunnings, a receipt or invoice might have been issued to his father, although the Applicant had paid for the items. He provided copies of the tax invoices for the concrete, together with copies of his bank statements covering the dates on which he said he made those reimbursements or payments, as exhibits to his third affidavit.

32. The Applicant was subject to cross-examination and re-examination on his affidavit evidence.

    Evidence of other witnesses

33. Mr Peter Fraser (Mr Fraser Senior) is the Applicant’s father.  An affidavit affirmed by him on 13 February 2025 was filed with the Tribunal.[21]  Mr Fraser Senior provided his recollection of how the Applicant’s business started and the Applicant’s living arrangements.  Mr Fraser Senior indicated that he had been involved in the construction industry for around 40 years and described the circumstances of the Lease and activities relating to the construction of the Building on the West Woombye Property.  He also made observations about the Ford Ranger in his affidavit.

    [21] Marked as Exhibit 7.

34. Based on apparent inconsistencies within Mr Fraser Senior’s affidavit, and between his affidavit and the evidence he gave during cross-examination, including the observation that he could not remember some of the contents of the affidavit, the Tribunal asked Mr Fraser Senior to describe how his affidavit was prepared.  He told the Tribunal that he sat down with a lawyer who asked him questions and took down his answers, then a draft of the affidavit was emailed to him for his review and any corrections.  He would then have signed the final version, although he conceded that he may not have read it properly.[22]

    [22] Transcript, P-119.

35. The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Fraser Senior sought to be honest when responding to questions at the hearing and this was the proper approach for him to take, even if this identified areas of uncertainty in his affidavit.  However this does mean that the Tribunal can place very limited weight on his affidavit evidence, particularly as it relates to the timing of events and the construction of the Building, unless it is corroborated by other more reliable evidence.

36. Ms Hoogduin is the Applicant’s girlfriend who has also worked in the Applicant’s business.  An affidavit affirmed by her on 6 February 2025 was filed with the Tribunal.[23]  Ms Hoogduin’s affidavit evidence covered her recollection of the inception of the Applicant’s ideas for YouTube content, a description of the work tasks she undertook for the business and what a usual workday might involve, a description of work undertaken at the Applicant’s parents’ property and her understanding of the new building that was constructed there.  Also exhibited to her affidavit were two undated photographs of a whiteboard which she said were examples of the issues she and the Applicant would discuss during weekly meetings about the business.

    [23] Marked as Exhibit 8.

37. She also gave evidence about the circumstances giving rise to the purchase of the Ford Ranger, including the Fourth Channel and advice she said was provided to the Applicant by his accountant. 

38. On initial cross-examination by the Respondent’s counsel, Ms Hoogduin’s responses were very limited and on several points she indicated that she could not remember the matters in question.  During a short break without the witness present the Tribunal asked the Applicant’s representatives whether there were any issues relating to Ms Hoogduin’s understanding of the questions being put to her.  The Applicant’s counsel said there were no such concerns.  After the break Ms Hoogduin was able to provide fuller responses to questions from the Respondent’s counsel.

1. Ms Wyllie is a senior accountant at the firm Grow Accounting.  Ms Wyllie’s evidence related to Grow Accounting’s engagement as the Applicant’s accountant and registered tax agent.  An affidavit affirmed by her on 12 February 2025 was originally filed with the Tribunal.  However following disagreement between the parties as to whether parts of her affidavit represented expert opinion which was not given in accordance with the Tribunal’s procedures for expert evidence a further version of her affidavit was filed on 26 June 2025 with the contentious lines struck out, and this is the version to which the Tribunal has had regard.[24]

   [24] Marked as Exhibit 9.

2. Ms Wyllie stated that the Applicant first engaged the services of Grow Accounting on 24 May 2023 and therefore her firm had not prepared or lodged the BAS the subject of the GST Amended Assessments.  Grow Accounting had prepared and lodged the Objection on behalf of the Applicant and had reviewed the Applicant’s BAS for this purpose.  During cross-examination Ms Wyllie indicated that she had drafted the Objection correspondence in conjunction with a partner of her firm.  Grow Accounting had also provided the Applicant with taxation advice on the appropriate structure through which the Applicant should conduct his business.

3. The Respondent’s counsel drew to the attention of the Tribunal that much of the content of Ms Wyllie’s affidavit is the same as the content of the Objection.  The Tribunal does not believe that the fact of the wording of the Objection and Ms Wyllie’s affidavit being aligned is controversial, noting that the role of Grow Accounting as the Applicant’s accounting and taxation adviser was made clear to the Tribunal.  However the significant proportion of Ms Wyllie’s affidavit is directed to outlining the views of her firm as to the correct GST treatment of the Applicant’s business activities.  This of itself is not probative of any of the Applicant’s contentions.

   FACTUAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS

4. Having regard to the evidence of the witnesses and the additional documentary materials, the Tribunal sets out its understanding of and findings in relation to relevant factual matters.

   Inception and conduct of the video production business

5. The Applicant said that since 2021 or 2022[25] he has carried on a business creating videos that were published on YouTube.  Until 30 June 2023 he operated this business as a sole trader with an ABN and GST registration accordingly.  He said that when he started this work he did not know much about business and prepared his own BAS (including the BAS for the Relevant Tax Periods) but subsequently sought accounting advice as he started making more money.[26] From 1 July 2023 the business has been carried on through a trust (‘ASSEMBLEGG’) with a corporate trustee (ASSEMBLEGG Pty Ltd). 

   [25] In paragraph 3 of his first affidavit the Applicant refers to starting his business in 2021, but during cross examination indicated that it may have been 2022, see Transcript P-16.

   [26] Transcript, P-16 to P-17.  The Applicant said that he had another accountant with whom he was dissatisfied, which led to him engaging Grow Accounting.

6. The Applicant stated that he entered into contractual arrangements with a ‘multi-channel network’ (‘MCN’) called Elite Alliance LLC (‘Elite’) which is a company is incorporated in the United States.  He described an MCN as a third party service provider which assists content creators by providing various channel related services including audience development, content programming, collaboration with other content creators, managing complaints about infringement of intellectual property rights, liaising with YouTube, dealing with ‘community guideline’ strikes and ensuring that the YouTube channels are monetised effectively.

7. The Applicant provided copies of three ‘Channel Partnership Agreements’ between him and Elite, one for each of the Three YouTube Channels.[27]  These agreements were signed electronically and the document history summary of each indicates that although two of the agreements (‘Illusive’ and ‘Karen Hour’) were signed by the Applicant in September and October 2022, they were not signed by Elite until February 2023.  The third agreement (BitMore) was signed by the Applicant in August 2022 and by Elite in September 2022.

   [27] T18.1, 18.2 and 18.3.

8. The Tribunal observes that the Channel Partnership Agreements:

   (a)Assume that the Applicant is the ‘sole owner’ of the relevant YouTube channel covered by the agreement.  As discussed below, it is unclear when or how the Applicant acquired or became entitled to operate the Three YouTube Channels.

   (b)Are not specifically drafted in the form of a ‘service agreement.’  Under each of the Channel Partnership Agreements the Applicant grants to Elite the ‘exclusive rights … throughout the world and universe’ to monetise the Applicant’s channels on YouTube[28] and collect revenue arising from exploitation of the channel.  The agreements do refer to the administration of the Applicant’s copyrights by Elite.

   (c)State that Elite will to the Applicant pay 95% of the YouTube revenue it collects, on a monthly basis.

   [28] The Channel Partnership Agreements also contemplate monetisation on platforms other than YouTube.

9. There was no documentary evidence indicating when or how the Applicant acquired or otherwise became entitled to operate the Three YouTube Channels.  The three channels were described by the Applicant as  ‘Official Illusive,’[29] ‘Fantastic Freakouts’ (which may also have a branch called ‘Public Freakouts’)[30] and ‘Wild Moments.’  One or more of these channels features content about people acting incorrectly in public, lashing out or otherwise behaving poorly[31], in some instances involving people described as ‘Karens’.  This may explain the reference to ‘Karen Hour’ in one of the Channel Partnership Agreements.

   [29] Described by Ms Hoogduin as the main channel, Transcript P-161.

   [30] Transcript, P-161.

   [31] Transcript, P-112.

10. The Applicant said that the amount paid by YouTube to Elite is calculated on the basis of the number of views of the videos posted.  The amount that YouTube paid per 1000 views of any video varied and he was not sure how YouTube determined this amount, but the more times a video was viewed the more money was generated.  As a content creator it was therefore important to publish videos that were popular so that the number of views, and hence the amount of money generated, was maximised.  As of the date of his first affidavit in November 2024, he said that he had produced over 1,100 videos which had been published on the Three YouTube Channels.

11. The Applicant described aspects of how his business was conducted:

    (a)The ideas for the content of the YouTube channels came from him, arising from his own research, including viewing YouTube and other video content and using a marketplace research product on a digital platform called Steam.  He would also watch television programs for ideas on production techniques.

    (b)He would also discuss his content ideas, business development and other work matters with Ms Hoogduin, including during regular meetings on Sundays.

    (c)He would meet with other content creators to collaborate and share ideas in relation to his videos and other videos on YouTube.

    (d)He engaged voice over actors, scriptwriters, editors and thumbnail artists in producing the videos, as well as a project manager to coordinate these contractors.  These contractors were based overseas and the Applicant and Ms Hoogduin communicated with them from Australia via teleconferencing software.  The Applicant agreed with the proposition that all of the content for the videos was created overseas.  None of the contractors had visited Australia. [32]

    (e)The Applicant also has a website, ASSEMBLEGG, which offers merchandise but is largely directed to giving the Applicant’s business a bigger presence, particularly overseas. [33]

    [32] Transcript, P-19.

    [33] Transcript, P-21.

12. Ms Hoogduin stated that she met the Applicant in April 2021.  At that time she was working in a retail role, which she subsequently left when the Applicant suggested she become a contractor with his business, in a management role, around August 2022.  She described the particular tasks she undertook as including email communications with script writers, providing scripts to voice actors for video voice overs, sending videos for editing and uploading completed videos to YouTube.  She would check and review the work at various stages in this process.  Her estimate was that it took about 50 minutes to complete these tasks for one video.[34] 

    [34] See paragraph 16 of Ms Hoogduin’s affidavit and T12.1.  See also Transcript P-161 to P-162 where Ms Hoogduin explained the whiteboarded tasks in the photographs exhibited to her affidavit.

13. There was no written service or other contract between the Applicant and Ms Hoogduin, but she would issue invoices to the Applicant periodically for ‘management fees.’ Copies of invoices she had issued to the Applicant were exhibited to her affidavit.  These invoices do not set out an hourly rate or an indication of time spent by Ms Hoogduin on work in the Applicant’s business during the period invoiced. The invoices generally covered periods of a week but the amounts invoiced varied from $200 to $10,000. There is no description of the work undertaken other than ‘management fee.’ Unusually, some of the invoiced amounts are expressed in US dollars even though it is agreed that Ms Hoogduin was located in Australia at the time she said she performed this work, the invoices are addressed to an Australian location and the amounts are payable into an Australian bank account.

14. The Applicant offered a partial explanation for these remuneration arrangements.  He said that an hourly rate did not properly reflect how much Ms Hoogduin should be paid because the income made from any video was based on the success of the video and therefore variable.[35]  Ms Hoogduin also told the Tribunal that what she got paid was dependent on what she reviewed, but she did not keep records of time spent or how many videos she reviewed and could not recall whether the Applicant asked her about the work she had done.[36]  The Tribunal asked Ms Hoogduin to clarify what sorts of different activities might have arisen in the business during the Relevant Tax Periods to explain the significant differences in amounts invoiced for management services.  Ms Hoogduin explained that at certain times of the year more videos would be produced.  On re-examination, Ms Hoogduin indicated that the amounts received during the year via Elite referable to the monetisation of the Three YouTube Channels were variable, which might correlate to the variable amounts invoiced by Ms Hoodguin.  No further evidence was offered on this point.[37]

    [35] Transcript, P-23.  At paragraph 42 of the Applicant’s Closing Submissions it is suggested that on the basis that the Applicant was producing around 42 videos per week, Ms Hoogduin was doing approximately 40 hours per week of work in the business.  This is only an estimate and cannot be confirmed by any of the invoices or other documents provided.

    [36] Transcript, P-139 to P-140.

    [37] Transcript, P-148, P-165.

15. The Applicant stated that no input tax credits were claimed by him in relation to amounts paid to Ms Hoogduin, and the Respondent does not contend otherwise. It is not necessary to consider whether amounts paid to Ms Hoogduin were related to creditable acquisitions  or gave rise to income taxation deductions.  However the Tribunal does find that the absence of any reliable documentation corroborating the work undertaken by Ms Hoogduin contributes to uncertainty about the timing of events that occurred in relation to the Applicant’s business, the description of particular business activities and the relationship between the Applicant’s business activities and the Building.

    The Building on the West Woombye Property

16. When he started producing videos in 2021, the Applicant said that he worked from his bedroom but as he began to earn income from the videos, and after returning to live with his parents in December 2021 or early 2022[38], he started to use the Granny Flat on the West Woombye Property as a temporary office for creating content.  This Granny Flat had previously been used as a garage and was partially carpeted, with a kitchenette, toilet and bathroom .  The Applicant said that during the time he used it as an office it contained a refrigerator but no beds.[39]  He said that he placed two functioning computers there, one for him to work from and one for Ms Hoogduin to use, as well as a television and some non-functioning computers.  Ms Hoogduin would come to the Granny Flat anywhere from three times weekly to daily, and for variable hours depending on work volume.[40]

    [38] Paragraph 31 of Applicant’s affidavit dated 1 November 2024.  See also Transcript, P-27.

    [39] Transcript, P-28.

    [40] Transcript, P-29.

17. Various electrical appliances and furnishings were identified by the Applicant as having been purchased by him for his office and thus for his business.  This included a television and television cabinet, audio visual equipment, leads and power boards, a conference table and chairs, a couch, a refrigerator, a vacuum cleaner, tea towels and soap dispensers.  He said that he started purchasing these items from around May 2022.  Initially they were for use in the Granny Flat space with the intention of later being used in the Building.  The Applicant said that the television was purchased for viewing and researching YouTube videos as well as watching other programs on Netflix for editing and production tips.  The Applicant named ‘The Big Bang Theory’ as an example of a program which had a laugh track in the background and professional editing techniques.[41]

    [41] Transcript, P-34.

18. Other than the original receipts for these purchases, there was no documentary evidence indicating where or how these items were used.  The only explanations provided in relation to these items were in the affidavit and verbal evidence of the Applicant, Ms Hoogduin and Mr Fraser Senior.

19. The Applicant said that after ‘a few months’ his father told him that he could not continue using the Granny Flat and needed to find a permanent office space. During cross-examination the Applicant suggested this was in early 2022.[42]  Around this time he was also contemplating the expansion of his business, his view being that having multiple income producing channels mitigated the risk associated with one channel being demonetised.

    [42] Transcript, P-30.

20. The Applicant was unclear as to when he ceased using the Granny Flat space as a temporary office.  He thought it might have been around a year after he first started using it, and he indicated that he put work on the Building on hold after the Respondent commenced its audit.  Counsel for the Respondent observed that the audit did not commence until mid-2023 and the Applicant acknowledged that he could not provide precise dates.   Counsel for the Respondent also drew the attention of the Applicant and Tribunal to the Objection dated October 2023 which stated that the various furnishings and equipment were still being used in the Granny Flat office space at that time.[43]

    [43] Transcript, P-36.

21. In his affidavit, Mr Fraser Senior confirmed that the Applicant had been living at the family home on the West Woombye Property until around July 2021 when the Applicant moved in with a friend for around 6 months, returning to his former bedroom in the family home in December 2021.  Mr Fraser Senior also said that around February 2022[44] the Applicant had started using the Granny Flat on the West Woombye Property as an office, with the Applicant placing his computer in the Granny Flat and leaving the main house to go to the Granny Flat periodically.  Mr Fraser Senior identified items of furniture and electrical appliances which he said that the Applicant had bought and stored in the Granny Flat.  This included a television and television cabinet, a refrigerator, a couch and a vacuum cleaner.

    [44] Mr Fraser Senior referred to ‘three years previously’, presumably to the date of his affidavit which would be around February 2022.

22. The Applicant identified certain features he wanted in an office, including a ‘professional’ atmosphere, a dedicated space for meeting with other content creators and his project manager and a creative space for watching and researching other YouTube content.  He became aware of an office advertised for lease in his local town but decided it was not suitable due to its distance from his home and his pattern of working odd hours.  He said it was ‘at this time’ that he thought of building an office on the West Woombye Property and approached his father.[45]

    [45] Paragraph 40 of Applicant’s affidavit dated 1 November 2024. It was not clear when this time was.

23. In his affidavit, Mr Fraser Senior said that ‘approximately two and a half years’[46] after the Applicant started using the Granny Flat as an office, Mr Fraser Senior and his wife told the Applicant that they wanted the Granny Flat back for use by one of the Applicant’s brothers who needed a place to live.  He said that the Applicant asked him if there was a place on the West Woombye Property where an office could be built. 

    [46] Paragraph 27 of Mr Fraser Senior’s affidavit.  Based on the time at which Mr Fraser Senior said that the Applicant started using the Granny Flat as an office, being around February 2022, this would mean that the Frasers asked the Applicant to vacate the Granny Flat and discussions about a new structure commenced around August 2024.

24. During cross-examination the Respondent’s counsel asked various questions of Mr Fraser Senior seeking to clarify the timeline of events.  Mr Fraser Senior observed that he had some difficulty with dates, was not sure about the basis on which he put forward certain dates in his affidavit, although he thought he would have done some research and in relation to other dates conceded that he ‘wouldn’t have a clue.’[47] He was unable to confirm how regularly the Applicant went to the Granny Flat to work or how often Ms Hoogduin would come to the Granny Flat, noting that he and his wife did not believe it was any of their business.[48]

    [47] Transcript, P117 to P-118, P-121, P-122.

    [48] Transcript, P-120.

25. Mr Fraser Senior was clear in his recollection that the Applicant had been using the Granny Flat as an office for a period of time and that the Granny Flat had later been required as a home for the Applicant’s brother.  He also confirmed that the Applicant had approached him about building an office elsewhere on the West Woombye Property. His recollection was that the Applicant had vacated the Granny Flat around the time that the Applicant had bought a new home in another suburb and moved there.  The Applicant’s brother moved into the Granny Flat two or three weeks after that.  However he could not recall the dates when these events occurred.[49]

    [49] Transcript, P-122. Mr Fraser said that the Applicant vacated the Granny Flat before his brother moved in, but subsequently said that the Applicant could not give leave the Granny Flat until a new office was built.

26. Ms Hoogduin confirmed that she and the Applicant had held their Sunday work meetings at the Granny Flat for a period of time.  She also described desks, computers, a television and television cabinet, a couch and a refrigerator being in the Granny Flat during the period from May 2022 to May 2023.   She indicated that she and the Applicant would use Netflix on the television to watch the program ‘The Big Bang Theory’ for ideas on video editing and voiceovers.  They may also have watched another movie on the television but only for research purposes, and not for general television viewing or otherwise use it for private purposes.[50]

    [50] Transcript, P-151 to P-152.

1. She said that she remembered the Applicant telling her that his father needed the Granny Flat back to accommodate the Applicant’s brother, but could not recall when that was or when she and the Applicant stopped using the Granny Flat for their meetings.  She suggested that as of August 2024 they did not have a meeting space but could not be more specific. The refrigerator remained at the Granny Flat after she and the Applicant stopped using it, but they took the computers, couch and television with them to their new home where she said that they have separate office spaces. [51]

   [51] Transcript, P-150 to P-152.

2. The Applicant stated that on 1 July 2022 he entered into a ‘written but informal agreement’ with his parents for use of part of the West Woombye Property.  A copy of the document described as the Lease was provided to the Tribunal.[52]  This is a one page document signed by the Applicant and each of his parents and is undated although the date ‘1 July 2022’ appears beside each of the signatures.  The Lease covered a ¾ acre parcel of land within the West Woombye Property.  The term of the Lease was ‘1 July 2022, to 30 June 2023, and then extended automatically until 14 days’ notice is given by either party.’ An amount of $1.00 was payable by the Applicant to his parents annually, subject to renegotiation.  The Applicant was required to maintain the parcel of land, including ‘gardens, lawn, and road.’

   [52] T18.4.

3. Mr Fraser Senior said in his affidavit that ‘at the time of building the shed’ he had the Applicant sign the Lease.  Mr Fraser Senior told the Tribunal that he and his wife were not seeking income from the Building but wanted a written document that made the Applicant take responsibility for the maintenance of the Building and the area immediately surrounding it.  During cross-examination he confirmed that this was the purpose of the Lease.  Counsel for the Respondent queried why Mr Fraser Senior said that the Lease was signed at the time of building, when the signatures  on the Lease were dated July 2022 and the Proposal for the shed was not signed until October 2022, with the shed frame being delivered in January 2023.  Mr Fraser Senior explained that preparation for construction, such as clearing the site, preparing the pad for the Building and building retaining walls would have taken some months.  The Tribunal accepts this explanation as plausible.

4. The Tribunal acknowledges that the signatures on the Lease are dated July 2022 but during cross examination the evidence of the Applicant and Mr Fraser Senior was quite vague as to how that Lease document was prepared and executed.  The Applicant could not recall who drafted the document or whether anyone witnessed his signature.[53]  Counsel for the Respondent also queried who drafted the Lease, why the Lease did not contemplate any improvements to the site (such as the Building) and how the one dollar rent amount was paid.  The Respondent queried whether the Lease might have been signed after July 2022.[54]  Mr Fraser Senior could not recall these particular details, however the Tribunal does not believe this requires the conclusion that the Lease misrepresented the agreement between the Applicant and his parents.  In the context of an arrangement between family members, it may be accepted that drafting of documentation could be imperfect.  The Tribunal does not necessarily accept that a legally valid ‘lease’ was entered into, but can accept that the Applicant had his parents’ permission to build an additional structure on the West Woombye Property at some point in time.

   [53] Transcript, P-19, P-62.  The Applicant said he did not draft it and thought it was possible that his parents had.

   [54] Transcript, P-64, P-130.

5. In relation to the structure itself, Mr Fraser Senior said that he told the Applicant that building a shed which could be converted into an office, rather than building a ‘traditional’ office would be the best option because building was simpler and cheaper, fewer approvals were required and there would be no need to engage an engineer.  He said that the Applicant asked for his assistance with building based on his construction experience.

6. The Applicant described engaging a business called Southern Cross Sheds to design a shed with his desired features, including two separate office spaces and a larger meeting room, although Southern Cross Sheds advised that they could not do the internal fit-out of the Building. Mr Fraser Senior described a meeting between himself, the Applicant and representative of Southern Cross Sheds about the design of the shed (which the Tribunal will now refer to as the Building) although the date of this meeting is not clear.  

7. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of a ‘Proposal# 26023_Fraser-1’[55] prepared by Southern Cross Sheds and signed by the Applicant on 25 October 2022 which sets out specifications and costings for a shed to be constructed on the West Woombye Property.  The Tribunal can conclude from this document that by October 2022 the Applicant had had discussions with Southern Cross Sheds about the supply of a shed to be placed at a particular location on the West Woombye Property and that this covered the frame structure and external features.[56] 

   [55] Exhibit AF-2 to the Applicant’s first affidavit.

   [56] The Proposal leaves blank the designation of ‘internal walls.’

8. The Applicant explained certain purchases made during September 2022 as relating to preparation of the site for the construction of the Building, including earthmoving works for flattening out the pad and reinstating lawn areas around the site, and pipework for plumbing and drainage.[57]  His father was able to use some of his own tools for this preparatory work and the Applicant purchased other tools for this build.  It is not clear why some preparatory work, including piping, was apparently undertaken prior to confirmation of the design of the shed.  The Applicant confirmed he was unable to find any sketches or photographs that he might have provided to Southern Cross Sheds for design purposes.[58]

   [57] Transcript, P-42, P-60.

   [58] Transcript, P-61.

9. The Applicant stated that he purchased the shed on 24 January 2023 and construction was finished by 4 April 2023.    Mr Fraser Senior said that construction of the Building (being the shed structure) was completed in March 2023 and that subsequently he and the Applicant built internal framing, a mezzanine floor and an internal sliding door.  Photographs of the interior of the building and an aerial photograph of the West Woombye Property showing the location of the Building were included as exhibits to his affidavit.  He identified further work that, as of the date of his affidavit, was required to finish the Building, such as electrical works, plastering, painting, and installation of air-conditioning. He said that this work had been put on hold pending the outcome of this Tribunal proceeding.

10. During cross examination Mr Fraser Senior could also not recall key dates relating to the construction of the Building. His affidavit suggested that his other son needed to move into the Granny Flat around mid-2024, but the proposal from Southern Cross Sheds for a shed was dated October 2022.  Other documents suggested that the shed frame was purchased around January 2023 and construction occurred during April 2023, whereas his affidavit said construction of the shed was completed in March 2023.  Mr Fraser Senior acknowledged that he was unable to remember the exact dates or what year the shed was constructed.[59]

    [59] Paragraph 35 of Mr Fraser Senior’s affidavit, Transcript, P-124 to P-126. 

11. After hearing from the witnesses there remained some uncertainty around the timeline relating to the use of the Granny Flat space by the Applicant and the construction of the Building.  The evidence given by the Applicant and his father suggests that the Applicant started using the Granny Flat in some capacity around early 2022.  In his affidavit Mr Fraser Senior suggested that he spoke to the Applicant about vacating the Granny Flat around August 2024, although he subsequently acknowledged that he may have got his dates confused.  The proposal for the shed structure from Southern Cross Sheds was signed in October 2022 and payment for the shed frame was made in January 2023, and the Tribunal accepts those documents as evidence of arrangements with Southern Cross Sheds for the design and purchase of a shed for placement on the West Woombye Property around late 2022 to early 2023. 

12. These matters also create some uncertainty around how the Granny Flat was used by members of the Fraser family during the years from 2022 to 2024, in the context of the Tribunal being asked by the Applicant to place evidentiary weight on the recollections of the Applicant, his father and Ms Hoogduin as to the contents and use of the Granny Flat.  Mr Fraser Senior subsequently acknowledged that he did not pay particular attention to when or how his son used the Granny Flat.

13. Certain invoices for materials delivered to the West Woombye Property, such as concrete, were addressed to Mr Fraser Senior as the customer or purchaser rather than the Applicant.[60]  Mr Fraser Senior explained that he organised these materials for the Applicant and the practice was for payment to be made upon delivery, and delivery often was scheduled for specific times such as early in the morning.  Further, if he was quoted a good price for materials it was essential to secure that price.  Therefore if the Applicant was not going to be present when the material was delivered, Mr Fraser Senior paid the supplier and was reimbursed by the Applicant later. The Respondent queried the absence of any written or oral agency arrangement for Mr Fraser Senior to acquire these items on behalf of the Applicant.  Although there was some lack of evidence relating to specific reimbursement amounts the Tribunal accepts Mr Fraser Senior’s explanation of these transactions and that he purchased these materials on behalf of the Applicant rather than on his own account.

    [60] See for example the invoice at T8.15.

14. Mr Fraser Senior was also asked questions which apparently related to receipts provided by the Applicant for purchases of diesel fuel.  The Applicant had also been questioned about payments for diesel fuel which he said was for a Bobcat used to clear the site for the Building.[61] During re-examination, the Applicant’s counsel asked Mr Fraser Senior a question about an earth moving vehicle shown in photographs of the West Woombye Property. He confirmed that it ran on diesel and that the Applicant had paid for the diesel.[62]  Based on the dates of the receipts, the photographs and Mr Fraser Senior’s evidence the Tribunal is willing to accept that the diesel fuel was used in the excavator in relation to works relating to the construction of the Building.

    [61] Transcript, P-47.

    [62] Transcript, P-136.

15. The Tribunal observes that acceptance of the use of the concrete and diesel in relation to the construction of the Building does not of itself require the conclusion that these items were creditable acquisitions of the Applicant.

    The Fourth YouTube Channel and the Ford Ranger

16. The Applicant said that he came up with the idea to create the Fourth YouTube Channel around the time he was designing the shed/Building.  He said his plan was to buy a four wheel drive vehicle to take to difficult to reach locations, then make video content of him modifying and travelling in the vehicle which would be posted to the Fourth YouTube Channel.  He described researching various models of vehicle before identifying a particular model of Ford Ranger as appropriate for this purpose.  

17. Ms Hoogduin’s recollection was that she and the Applicant used to watch 4WD YouTube channels and around November 2022 the Applicant suggested that they could do something similar.[63]

    [63] Paragraph 28 of Ms Hoogduin’s affidavit, Transcript P-152.

18. The Applicant said that he purchased the Fourth YouTube Channel from an overseas contact who sold channels that had already been monetised.  He could not provide the name of this contact who he described as ‘a random Skype contact.’  He paid for the channel via PayPal and said that this would be one of the PayPal transactions in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet, in an amount of between $200 to $400. [64]  This is apparently the totality of the evidence relating to the Applicant obtaining rights to the Fourth YouTube Channel.  

    [64] Transcript, P-75.

19. Mr Fraser Senior also set out in his affidavit some matters relating to the Ford Ranger.  To the extent that this evidence recounts what he recalls the Applicant telling him about the Applicant’s intentions for the Ford Ranger and the Fourth YouTube Channel, the Tribunal views this as hearsay and absent any corroboration is unable to place evidentiary weight on these statements.  However Mr Fraser Senior did state that the Applicant spoke to him ‘before building the [Building]’ about ‘modifying and installing new parts on the Ford Ranger’ This appears inconsistent with the Applicant’s evidence, and documentation relating to the purchase of the shed and Ford Ranger, that construction of the shed frame was completed before the Ford Ranger was purchased in May 2023.

20. The Applicant gave evidence that he discussed his plans for the Fourth YouTube Channel and the Ford Ranger with a representative of Southern Cross Sheds during discussions about the proposal for the Building.  There is no documentary or other evidence corroborating discussions about the Fourth YouTube Channel, the Ford Ranger or any other purpose for or features of the Building, and the representative of Southern Cross Sheds did not provide a witness statement.  The Tribunal cannot place reliance on these recollections of the Applicant.

21. The Applicant said that he sought advice from Grow Accountant about the Fourth YouTube Channel and the purchase of the vehicle and they told him that there would be tax advantages if he bought the vehicle before 30 June 2023.[65] 

    [65] Transcript, P-17.

22. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence given by Ms Wyllie in relation to when Grow Accounting was retained by the Applicant, the scope of that engagement and the instructions provided by the Applicant to Grow Accounting.  In particular, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he received advice from Ms Wyllie as to the sort of vehicle he should purchase and when that vehicle should be purchased, which led to him purchasing the Ford Ranger before 30 June 2023.  In her affidavit Ms Hoogduin stated that she also recalled attending a meeting at Grow Accounting where the accountant gave advice about the purchase of a one-tonne payload vehicle.  During cross-examination she said that did not attend ‘the first few meetings’ with Grow Accounting but did attend the meeting where the Ford Ranger was discussed, and it was after that meeting that the Applicant (and Ms Hoogduin) went to purchase the Ford Ranger.[66]  This does not align with other evidence given about the timing of the purchase of the Ford Ranger.

    [66] Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Ms Hoogduin’s affidavit.  She could not recall the specific advice and did not indicate when this meeting occurred.  See also Transcript P-153 to P-155.

23. Ms Wyllie’s evidence was that her firm was formally engaged by the Applicant on 24 May 2023[67], although there may have been a ‘meet and greet’ meeting or call before then.[68]  During cross-examination Ms Wyllie stated that she had not advised the Applicant in relation to the purchase of the Ford Ranger.  On re-examination she confirmed that she had never discussed the topic of purchasing a vehicle with a one-tonne payload with the Applicant prior to 24 May 2023.[69]  Grow Accounting’s formal engagement by the Applicant occurred more than two weeks after he purchased the Ford Ranger, and some months after he indicated that started looking for a vehicle. (The dates relating to the purchase of the Ford Ranger are set out in more detail below.)  The Tribunal’s impression was that Ms Wyllie gave this evidence clearly and without hesitation, in the context of very specific recollections of particular engagements with the Applicant, and therefore the Tribunal prefers her evidence on this point.  The Tribunal is unwilling to conclude that the Applicant’s purchase of the Ford Ranger was related to accounting or taxation advice received from Grow Accounting prior to the purchase of the Ford Ranger.

    [67] During cross examination Ms Wyllie referred to 24 June 2023 (Transcript P-169) but this appears to be an error.  The Applicant’s Closing Submissions refer to 23 May 2023 but this one day difference does not appear significant.

    [68] This is consistent with the Applicant’s recollection that he needed proper accounting advice quickly and it was only a few days between an initial call to Grow Accounting and meeting with Ms Wyllie, see Transcript P-18.

    [69] Transcript, P-170, P-183.

24. The Applicant said that he began looking for a suitable vehicle from around mid-March 2023.  A dealership in Queensland told him that a Ford Ranger of the model he was seeking would be available through them by 30 June 2023, but media reports about a biohazard affecting imported vehicles made him doubt whether they could meet his end of financial year deadline.  He said that he found a Ford Ranger that was already in stock at a dealership in New South Wales and put a deposit on that vehicle.  To get the Ford Ranger from New South Wales to Queensland, he booked a flight from Brisbane to Sydney in early May 2023 and stayed two nights at The Darling at the Star hotel in Sydney before collecting the Ford Ranger from the dealership on 10 May 2023.[70]   At some point Ms Hoogduin joined him and they drove back to Queensland over four days, staying at Airbnb properties and Ms Hoogduin’s parents’ home along the way.

    [70] The Applicant stated that he had originally arranged to collect the Ford Ranger on 9 May 2023 but there was a one day delay on the part of the dealership while they completed detailing of the vehicle.

25. Ms Hoogduin confirmed that she had accompanied the Applicant on the trip to collect the Ford Ranger.  She paid for her flights and meals but the Applicant paid for accommodation and other travel expenses.[71]

    [71] Paragraphs 32 and 33 of Ms Hoogduin’s affidavit.

26. The Applicant obtained motor vehicle insurance for the Ford Ranger for the period from May 2023 to May 2024 through Shannons.  The vehicle usage set out in the policy is stated as ‘Private Use Extreme Limited Use.’[72]  The Applicant said that the Ford Ranger had since been insured with Youi and the Youi policy should correctly describe usage for business purposes.[73]

    [72] TB1552.

    [73] Transcript, P-81.

27. The Applicant said that after purchasing the Ford Ranger he made various modifications to the vehicle.  He described this work as directed towards the development of the Fourth YouTube Channel. The Applicant still owns the Ford Ranger.  He told the Tribunal that he considers it to be a ‘prop’ for use in the Fourth YouTube Channel rather than a vehicle that he drives for work or personal use.  He said that he has not undertaken further development of the Fourth YouTube Channel pending the outcome of this Tribunal proceeding.  For this reason the Ford Ranger has remained parked at the Building since 2023, and this lack of use led to mechanical issues that required repairs during 2025.  He said that he drove it ‘intermittently’ in 2025 in this context.

28. Mr Fraser Senior confirmed that he had seen the Ford Ranger parked at the Building since it was purchased by the Applicant, although he knew that the Applicant had taken it out.  He was unable to confirm how many times the Applicant might have run the car or taken it out.[74]

    [74] P-132 to P-133.

29. During cross-examination Ms Hoogduin was also asked questions about the manner in which the Ford Ranger was used after its purchase.  She told the Tribunal that it had been driven for reasons such as testing its suspension and having a canopy installed. She noted that leaving the vehicle idle drained the battery.  She thought it had been driven away from the West Woombye Property on about ten occasions, most of which she characterised as business trips.   She included taking the Ford Ranger for a run or testing it as a business trip for these purposes.  The Ford Ranger was also used by the Applicant and Ms Hoogduin to drive to Albury for her sister’s wedding, which she said provided the opportunity for the vehicle to be given a run after two years of being idle.[75]  

    [75] Transcript, P-159 to P-160.  Ms Hoogduin indicated that her sister’s wedding was in March or April 2025, which was after the date of her February 2025 affidavit, and therefore the Albury trip was not described in her affidavit.

1. The Applicant has provided copies of receipts as evidence of the amounts he said that he expended:

   (a)During the trip to collect the Ford Ranger, including on fuel, food, accommodation and general travel expenses.

   (b)On materials, fittings, tools and equipment to undertake modifications to the Ford Ranger.

   (c)On items related to the maintenance of the Ford Ranger, including cleaning equipment.

2. The Applicant suggested that he would still develop the Fourth YouTube Channel ‘if the costs associated with doing so are creditable acquisitions and deductible for him in the Business.’[76]  This is not entirely consistent with the evidence of Ms Hoogduin who said that the Applicant had told her he did not intend to go ahead with the Fourth YouTube Channel on the basis that circumstances had changed since his original idea for the channel, including his reluctance to travel due to business responsibilities and the need to look after their animals, together with other content creators producing similar material.[77]

   [76] Applicant’s Closing Submissions at paragraph 37d.

   [77] Paragraphs 38 and 39 of Ms Hoogduin’s affidavit.

   Other motor vehicles

3. The Applicant has owned several vehicles other than the Ford Ranger before, during and after the Relevant Tax Periods.  There was some confusion about which vehicles were used in what context as there was uncertainty about number plate details and motor vehicle insurance policies may not have reflected the actual use of the vehicles.

4. From the affidavit evidence, evidence given during cross-examination and documents provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal makes the following observations and findings:

   (a)The Applicant identified during cross-examination that he owned or had owned a Ford Focus XR 5 (‘Ford Focus’) which was for his personal use. 

   (b)The Applicant identified a BMW F30 328i (‘BMW F30’) that he said was purchased by him for use in the business and which he used between 20 October 2022 and 2 June 2023 (at which point it broke down and is no longer in use).[78]   Log book records were provided in relation to a BMW 328i with registration O**4**[79]  The log book records provided start in February 2023 and end in June 2023.  However it was suggested that the insurance policy for this vehicle referred to registration 3**E***.  At one point the Applicant said that these number plates were for the Ford Focus, and then thought they might have been factory plates for the BMW 328i.  This issue was not resolved. 

   The Applicant said that the BMW F30 was the vehicle he used for business purposes including travelling to various retail outlets and suppliers to purchase items for the business.  The Applicant had identified purchases of fuel which he said were made for the BMW F30 and thus business related.  Counsel for the Respondent questioned whether the log book records for the BMW F30, which indicated that the BMW F30 had only been driven for shorter distances were consistent with  purchases of full tanks of fuel.  The Applicant suggested that he may have been using other vehicles for business purposes during this period and fuel purchases related to those vehicles.  This is inconsistent with other log book records (see below) and statements in the Applicant’s written closing submissions.  The Tribunal also views the evidence on this matter as unclear.

   The Tribunal was also provided with a copy of the motor vehicle insurance policy with Youi insurance for the BMW F30 for the 12 month period from October 2022 to October 2023.  The ‘Usage’ of the BMW F30 in the policy is stated as ‘Private – Not Used in Trip to Work or Study.’[80]  The Applicant said that the insurance policy was not correct and should have been updated to reflect usage for business purposes.  He was not sure whether this had occurred as at the date of the hearing.[81]  The Tribunal believes this matter does indicate an intention on the part of the Applicant, at least at the time the policy was taken out in late 2022, to use the BMW F30 for private purposes.

   (c)A Mercedes Benz A45 AMG Hatchback (‘A45 AMG’) was described by the Applicant as owned by ‘the business’ in correspondence with the Respondent in June 2023.[82]  Log book records were also provided to the Respondent for this vehicle.  It was subsequently confirmed by the Applicant that this vehicle was acquired after the Relevant Tax Periods and he did not commence using it for business purposes until June 2023. This aligns with the log book records provided.[83] 

   (d)A 2018 Mercedes Benz GLA250 (‘GLA 250’) was also described by the Applicant as owned by the business in the June 2023 correspondence with the Respondent.  Log book records were also provided for this vehicle.  It was confirmed by the Applicant that this vehicle was also acquired after the Relevant Tax Periods and he did not commence using it for business purposes until June 2023.  Again, this aligns with the log book records provided.[84] 

   (e)The Applicant indicated during cross-examination that he also had a Volkswagen Golf (VW Golf) with the registration O**4*.  The Tribunal notes that this number plate is very similar to the plates for the BMW F30 and it was not clear to the Tribunal whether there was confusion about these plate details. There are no log book records for this vehicle and the Applicant confirmed it was for personal use only.[85]

   [78] At paragraph 90 of his first affidavit the Applicant suggested the BMW F30 was no longer in use but during cross-examination he clarified that it was able to be used but he did not drive it much after mechanical issues, see Transcript, P-52.

   [79] T15.1.  For privacy reasons the Tribunal is not providing the complete number plate details.  See also T15.4, photograph of an odometer reading.

   [80] TB1273.

   [81] Transcript, P-51.

   [82] T6.

   [83] T15.3.  Transcript P-54 to P-55 and confirmed in the Applicant’s written closing submissions.

   [84] T15.2.

   [85] Transcript, P-15.

5. The Applicant said that Ms Hoogduin’s work within the business also included completing some of the log book records for the motor vehicles, as her writing was neater.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that the log book record for any trip was generally completed at the end of that trip. On a few occasions it may have been completed at the end of a return trip.[86] 

   [86] Transcript, P-15.

6. The Applicant said that he had a home based business as he worked from the Granny Flat at the West Woombye Property during the Relevant Tax Periods, and he used the BMW F30 to travel from this location to other places for the purposes of carrying out his enterprise.  These trips were recorded in the relevant log book.

   Events after the Relevant Tax Periods

7. The Applicant purchased a home in a suburb near the West Woombye Property where he now lives with Ms Hoogduin.  The Applicant could not recall the exact date he bought this property but thought he moved there around mid-2024.[87]

   [87] Transcript, P-12.

   ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

8. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant was carrying on an enterprise for the purposes of the GST Act during the Relevant Periods. The parties are in general agreement as to the nature of this enterprise, being a business involving video production. It is also accepted that the Applicant was registered for GST.

9. Both parties agree that:

   (a)Under section 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) the Applicant bears the onus of proving that the GST Amended Assessments were excessive or otherwise incorrect, and if so what the assessments of net amounts should have been.

   (b)The Applicant must discharge this onus to the standard of the balance of probabilities.

10. The Tribunal understands the Applicant’s position to be that:

    (a)He used the Granny Flat space as a temporary office for his business, including during the Relevant Tax Periods.

    (b)He constructed the Building for use as a future permanent office for his business.

    (c)Prior to and during the Relevant Tax Periods the Applicant bought various assets, including pieces of furniture, electrical appliances and other furnishings and goods for use in his Business, in the office, which was initially the temporary Granny Flat space and later would be the Building.  These items were not for private or personal use by him and/or Ms Hoogduin (nor did his parents use these items within their main family residence).

    (d)The BMW F30 was acquired by the Applicant for the purposes of carrying on his business and only used for business purposes.

    (e)He purchased the Ford Ranger as a ‘prop’ for videos to be produced in relation to the Fourth YouTube Channel.  He did not use the Ford Ranger for personal use during the Relevant Tax Periods.  The fact that no content had been produced on the Fourth YouTube Channel did not prevent expenses incurred in the establishment of that channel, including expenses relating to the acquisition of the Ford Ranger, from being creditable acquisitions.  Buying the Ford Ranger was a preparatory step to producing content for the Fourth YouTube Channel.[88] 

    [88] Ell v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 71 at [114] to [116].

11. The Applicant said that he was entitled to an input tax credit for any purchase he made for the purpose of carrying on his enterprise (and subject to the other requirements of sections 11-5 and 11-5 of the GST Act). It was not for the Respondent to tell the Applicant how he should run his business or make judgements on how the Applicant should spend his money in carrying out his enterprise.[89]

    [89] Tweddle v Commissioner of Taxation (1942) 180 CLR 3 at 7. See Applicant’s Closing Submissions in Response.

12. The Applicant said that the Tribunal must focus on the proper characterisation of the Applicant’s purpose in making each of the acquisitions set out in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet.  The Tribunal needed to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that each of these acquisitions was made by the Applicant for the intended purpose for use in carrying on the Applicant’s enterprise.  This was to be determined as at the time of the relevant acquisition.[90]

    [90] Paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s Closing Submissions in Reply.

13. The Applicant therefore contended that each of the purchases identified in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet gave rise to an input tax credit for him on the basis that:

    (a)Each of these transactions was a taxable supply to him.[91]

    (b)He provided, or was liable to provide, the consideration for each of these supplies.[92]

    (c)None of these supplies was for private or domestic purposes.

    (d)Therefore, each of these transactions represented a creditable acquisition, having been acquired or a creditable purpose.

    [91] Paragraph 11-5(b) of the GST Act.

    [92] Paragraph 11-5(c).

14. On the basis that the Applicant was required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that each transaction set out in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet was a creditable acquisition, the Respondent identified the credibility of the Applicant as a witness as key.  Although the Respondent did not suggest that the Tribunal reject all of the evidence given by the Applicant, the Respondent contended that the Applicant was not a credible witness in relation to material facts in issue.

15. The Respondent also contended that:

    (a)Regardless of the credibility of the Applicant and other witnesses, the Applicant had not discharged his onus of proof in relation to his entitlement to input tax credits.

    (b)The Applicant’s case had been put at a high level and minimal evidence had been provided by the Applicant in relation to each of the purchases for which input tax credits had been claimed.  Certain submissions made by the Applicant were not supported by any evidence.

    (c)There was no evidence that the Applicant had purchased the Fourth YouTube Channel, and it was conceded by the Applicant that he had never used the Fourth YouTube Channel.  The idea of creating content around the Ford Ranger was a divergence from the Applicant’s existing enterprise.  The purchase of the Ford Ranger and related expenditure was private in nature.

    (d)The Applicant’s evidence relating to the use of the BMW F30 was unreliable and did not support a finding that it was used solely for business purposes.  There was no on the evidence provided for apportionment between business and private use.

    (e)There was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Building was intended for use in the Applicant’s business and there was no nexus between purchases relating to the construction of the Building and the Applicant’s enterprise.

    (f)The evidence given in relation to the Lease was unreliable and there was in fact no lease arrangement. 

    (g)In relation to items of furniture and appliances which the Applicant said he had used in the Granny Flat and were for subsequent use in the Building, there was no evidence to demonstrate a nexus between these items and the conduct of his enterprise.

    (a)The Respondent therefore contended that the transactions set out in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet were not made for a creditable purpose.  Further all or some of them were private or domestic in nature.

    ANALYSIS

16. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant provided a volume of documentation in the form of receipts and invoices as proof of his expenditure on the various items in relation to which he had claimed input tax credits.  The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant purchased or acquired the items set out in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet, however this does not of itself give rise to the entitlement to an input tax credit.  The Applicant must prove, in relation to each item, that it was a creditable acquisition, including that the acquisition was made for a creditable purpose.  The Applicant must therefore establish that he acquired the item in carrying on his enterprise.[93]

    [93] See Gordon J’s description of the taxpayer’s task in R.V. Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd as Trustee of the R.V. Unit Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1169 at [32].

17. The majority of items in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet were categorised by reference to a particular ‘account’ indicating the nature of the expense or purchase.  Where appropriate, the Tribunal will provide its findings in relation to each item within a relevant ‘account’ category rather than name each line item separately. Some items will require individual consideration, and there are other items which have not been attributed to a particular account and will also be addressed separately.  Item numbers refer to the line number in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet (which is in Excel spreadsheet format).

18. In making its findings about an item, the Tribunal has had regard to any evidence given during cross-examination by way of explanation of that item, as well as any receipt or invoice identified for the item.  Some of the receipts provided do not provide detail of the item or items purchased, only identifying the supplier and amount of purchase and only providing a generic description such as ‘light’, ‘battery’, ‘paint’, ‘mat’. The identity of the supplier may also not be of assistance in determining the nature of the purchase (for example, Coles, Kmart, Bunnings).  The Applicant has also cross-referenced some items to copies of his bank statements[94] which state the amount of the purchase and the supplier but again do not otherwise indicate the subject matter of the purchase.

    [94] Copies of these bank statements are at ST4.3, ST4.4, ST4.5.

19. In summary, the Tribunal has found that four items in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet each represent a creditable acquisition but none of the remaining items are creditable acquisitions.

20. The parties filed a Joint List of Authorities setting out numerous case authorities and copies of public guidance issued by the Respondent.  The Tribunal’s decision in this proceeding is largely based on the Applicant having failed to discharge its burden of proof, which in turn has arisen from the lack of reliable evidence provided on behalf of the Applicant.  For this reason, an extensive discussion of case authorities is not required.  The Tribunal acknowledges that it may be appropriate to have regard to rulings or guidance of the Respondent for the sake of consistency of decision making between taxpayers, but the Tribunal is not bound by such material.[95] In the present circumstances the Tribunal does not believe it was necessary to turn to the rulings and practice statements of the Respondent as it was able to make findings based on the language of the statutory provisions as they apply to the evidence presented.

    [95] Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 50

    Appliances, furnishings and other items for an office space

21. The following discussion relates to items categorised variously as ‘Furniture & Fixtures (730)’ and some items categorised as ‘Office Equipment (710),’ ‘Office Supplies (453)’ and ‘General expenses (429).’

22. The Applicant explained to the Tribunal that he wanted to create an office space with a particular atmosphere, and which had areas for meeting with other content creators as well as a creative space.  A number of the purchases were identified by the Applicant as fulfilling this brief.

23. In circumstances where all of the Applicant’s contractors were located overseas, most of the production work was undertaken overseas and there was no evidence of him having had meetings with anyone other than Ms Hoogduin, the Respondent queried whether all of the purchases claimed by the Applicant were relevant to or required for the carrying on of his business.

24. Citing the High Court decision in Tweddle, the  Applicant said that it was not appropriate for the Respondent to dictate how the Applicant should spend his money in carrying on his business.  The Tribunal can accept that this is correct as a general proposition, however in the context of applying the statutory provisions defining creditable acquisitions and creditable purchases, the Tribunal believes it is appropriate for the Respondent (and the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Respondent) to inquire as to the extent to which particular purchases relate to the carrying on of the Applicant’s business.

25. Several larger or more costly items were designated under Furniture & Fixtures 730, including the TV cabinet, refrigerator, couch and conference table.  Receipts or tax invoices were provided in relation to these items.  The Tribunal is unable to determine from the receipts or invoices whether or how these goods might be used in the Applicant’s business.  The Applicant provided the label ‘conference table’ which is suggestive of a business purpose but the relevant tax invoice appears to reference a ‘dining’ setting.  The tax invoice for the couch states ‘link invoice for dining set.’ A photograph provided by the Applicant of the table in the Building does not suggest that the table was used as, or was more likely to be used as, a conference or meeting table.  The Applicant and Ms Hoogduin told the Tribunal that these items were used in the Granny Flat in the course of business activities including research and review of videos.  They also said that these items, which by their nature could also be used for private or domestic purposes, were only used for business purposes.  However there is no other evidence to corroborate these assertions. 

26. On the basis of this limited evidence, and in the context of the wider uncertainty about the use of the Granny Flat, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that this furniture was acquired by the Applicant in carrying on his enterprise.   The Tribunal cannot find that any of the items under account Furniture & Fixtures 730 were creditable acquisitions.

27. A similar conclusion applies to certain items under account Office Equipment 710, including the television and an entertainment system that were said to be located in the Granny Flat:  see Items 5, 8.

1. Other transactions were identified as Office Supplies (453) and presumably said to be made in relation to the Applicant’s office, but are only referred to by the name of the supplier (for example, items described as ‘Bunnings’).  The Applicant did not provide further details of those items and in at least one instance acknowledged that he could not remember exactly what those items were.[96]  Absent evidence of what those purchases were for, the Tribunal cannot conclude that they represented creditable acquisitions.

   [96] Transcript P-40, referring to Item 4.

2. Some purchases designated as Office Equipment (710), Office Supplies (453) or General Expenses (429) were identified with a description of the goods or services but that description is generic or not otherwise indicative of a business purpose, and there is no other evidence demonstrating the relationship between the purchase and the Applicant’s business.[97]  This includes items which could have a private or business use but which have simply been labelled as ‘office’ or having a business purpose by the Applicant in his affidavit or in the Receipt Summary Statement[98] in circumstances where the receipt or tax invoice does not indicate a particular purpose or use for the purchase. The Tribunal cannot conclude that such transactions represented creditable acquisitions. 

   [97] See for example Items 87, 88, 89, 141 being ‘4 spa oils’, ‘door mat’, ‘marble air diffuser’, ‘water bottle holder.’

   [98] See Item 96 ‘Kmart Christmas decorations for office’ and Item 16 ‘Vacuum to clean office carpet stains.’

3. Other items designated as Office Equipment (710) do not appear to be related to any use in an office space:  see Items 46 and 47, ‘Sunshine Basalt’ and ‘Bunnings – Post Steel.’

4. Subject to the four items set out in the next paragraph, the Tribunal is unable to find on the balance of probabilities that these purchases were made for use in an office space or otherwise had a nexus to the carrying on of the Applicant’s business.  In this regard the Tribunal is unwilling to rely on the Applicant’s assertions in the context of conflicting evidence about the use of the Granny Flat and an absence of corroborating evidence about the use of the items.  In many cases there are no receipts for these purchases.

5. The Tribunal has identified three transactions where the description of the goods purchased in the receipt or tax invoice is of itself sufficient for the Tribunal to be satisfied that there is relationship between the purchase and the carrying on of the Applicant’s business and thus a creditable purpose such that the purchases represent creditable acquisitions.  These items are:

   (a)Two purchases from Apple, Belkin Boost Charge Pro and Airpods and Headphones, each tax invoice dated 23 November 2022:  see Items 85 and 91 on the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet.  On the basis of the agreed description of the Applicant’s business of video production and content creation, the Tribunal will accept on the balance of probabilities that these items were acquired in the carrying on of the Applicant’s enterprise.[99]

   (b)Some of the goods itemised within one invoice dated 22 February 2023 for a purchase from Spreadshirt of branded merchandise:  see Item 146 on the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet.[100]  Although the Tribunal is unable to confirm whether these items were destined for or provided to the overseas contractors as suggested in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet, the invoices rendered by the supplier identify clothing, mouse pads and travel mugs which were printed with the ‘assemble’ logo which the Tribunal understands to be business naming or identification adopted by the Applicant.  Some goods set out within the invoice are generic and not branded, such as the mugs printed with what appear to be motivational messages.  The Tribunal cannot conclude that a creditable purpose existed in relation to these mugs.  As the tax invoice sets out in detail each item purchased and its price the Tribunal believes this provides a basis for apportionment of the overall amount paid under that invoice.

   [99] It is noted that the Tribunal does not accept a further purchase for an Apple watch on the same date as a creditable acquisition.

   [100] The invoice is found at pages 109 to 112 of the Exhibit AF-1 to the Applicant’s first affidavit.  The Tribunal notes the invoice for a further purchase from Spreadshirt dated 21 April 2023 at Item 214 does not evidence branding of goods purchased, such that the Tribunal is unable to make a finding about the relationship of those goods to the Applicant’s business.

   Construction of the Building

6. The following discussion relates to items categorised as ‘New Office (1111)’.

7. The Respondent queried whether the Applicant needed to build a new office for the purposes of his business.  The Applicant argued that had he not built the Building, he might have entered into a lease of premises requiring a fit-out, the GST included in the expenditure on which would have given rise to input tax credits.   Similarly, had the Applicant engaged a third party builder to construct an office rather than purchasing the shed framework and hardscaping and landscaping materials and working with his father on the construction, he would have been charged for labour and materials and these costs would (also) have included GST.

8. The Applicant also challenged the Respondent’s argument that the expenditure on the construction of the Building was not associated with video production, on the basis that this did not reflect the test in section 11-5 of the GST Act. The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that a building might be constructed in the course of carrying out the Applicant’s business where the use or purpose of the building was not limited to ‘video production’ only. Hypothetically it might be possible for another relationship between the Applicant’s business and the building to be established.

9. However in the present circumstances there are other reasons why the Tribunal is unable to conclude that items designated under account New Office 1111 represent creditable acquisitions. 

10. It is not disputed that the Building framework was constructed and completed by mid-2023, although the interior remains unfinished.  However there was conflicting evidence from the Applicant and other witnesses as to when the Building was first contemplated.  The Applicant made statements about his intention for the Building and the design features relevant to his business which were not corroborated by other evidence.  The Applicant said that he had not retained or could not find copies of sketches or other material he provided to Southern Cross Sheds for the design of the Building framework.  There was no evidence to confirm the discussions he said he had with the representative of Southern Cross Sheds.  The Proposal dated October 2022 does not indicate any specific features in this regard.  The photographs of the Building show the shed framework and exterior landscaping, together with some items of furniture and what appear to be building materials stored inside.  They do not assist the Tribunal in understanding the purpose or intended use of the Building.

11. Further, in some instances there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that some items categorised as New Office (1111) relate to the construction of the Building, for example where they are identified in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet by a generic or high level descriptor such as item 30 ‘Bunnings – Plants.’  In many cases receipts or tax invoices provided do not give any additional information about the nature of the purchase.  They may refer to tools, hardware or other items which could be used in many different settings.  The Tribunal is unwilling to rely on the assertions of the Applicant as to the use of these items and cannot place significant weight on the reliability of the evidence of other witnesses in this regard.  The Tribunal does not believe that the Applicant has provided adequate evidence in support of a creditable purpose for these items and cannot find that they are creditable acquisitions.

12. The Respondent questioned how purchases made by the Applicant in October 2022 could be said to be related to the Building when the Building framework was not constructed until 2023, and the Proposal from Southern Cross Sheds was dated late October 2022.  The Applicant said that preparatory work for the Building commenced some months before its construction.  The Tribunal accepts the general proposition that purchases might be made prior to, and in anticipation of, the construction and fit-out of business premises to be used in carrying on an enterprise, such that the acquisitions were made for a creditable purpose.  However in the present circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that:

    (a)There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Building was to be used in the carrying on of the Applicant’s enterprise;  or

    (b)The evidence demonstrates that all of the purchases said to be made in relation to the Building were in fact made for that purpose.

    In such circumstances the issue of the proximity of the timing of the purchases to the timing of construction is not significant.

13. Although the Tribunal accepts that the Building framework was constructed and that the Applicant paid for a number of items relating to that construction, the Tribunal is unable to find that the Building was constructed in the carrying on of the Applicant’s enterprise.  The Tribunal therefore cannot find that any of the items categorised under account New Office (1111) represent creditable acquisitions.

    Fourth YouTube Channel and the Ford Ranger

14. The following discussion relates to items categorised as ‘Ford Ranger (3200).’

15. The Applicant said that he purchased the Ford Ranger as a ‘prop’ for videos to be produced in relation to the Fourth YouTube Channel.  Acquisition of the Ford Ranger was a preparatory step to producing content for the Fourth YouTube Channel.[101]  The Applicant rejected any suggestion that he did not own the Fourth YouTube Channel. Having previously established and monetised the Three YouTube Channels, the fact that no content had been produced on the Fourth YouTube Channel did not prevent expenses incurred in the establishment of that channel, including expenses relating to the acquisition of the Ford Ranger, from being creditable acquisitions. 

    [101] Ell v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 71 at [114] to [116].

16. The Tribunal acknowledges that evidence of ownership of a YouTube channel or the rights to operate a YouTube channel may take a different form to the types of material used to evidence ownership of other traditional types of business assets, such as real property, physical equipment or identified intellectual property rights. However in the present circumstances the Applicant was not able to indicate any basis for establishing ownership of or right to operate the Fourth YouTube Channel.  There was no correspondence or other documentation about his rights to the Fourth YouTube Channel and he could not explain when or how he acquired any rights other than to refer to an online communication with an unknown person on an unknown date. There was no channel partnership agreement relating to the Fourth YouTube Channel.[102]  The Tribunal is unable to find that the Fourth YouTube Channel is part of the enterprise conducted by the Applicant.

    [102] The Tribunal would not necessarily accept a channel partnership agreement of itself as evidence of ownership of or rights to operate a YouTube channel or other social media account or channel.

17. Nevertheless the Tribunal has considered the purchase of the Ford Ranger, and related expenses, not only in the context of an enterprise that includes the Fourth YouTube Channel but also in the context of the enterprise comprising the Three YouTube Channels.  The Tribunal does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Ford Ranger was purchased for use in the Applicant’s enterprise. The Tribunal is not willing to place significant reliance on the statements of the Applicant and Ms Hoogduin about the Applicant’s intention and actions, in circumstances where their evidence in this regard is not corroborated by other material and is in some cases contradicted by documentary evidence or the evidence of other witnesses.  At most the Tribunal might accept that the Applicant had, at some point, thought about doing videos of 4WD journeys.  The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that this represented a departure from content of the business enterprise that the Applicant had established with the Three YouTube Channels. The Tribunal therefore cannot conclude that the Applicant has discharged his onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he acquired the Ford Ranger, to any extent, in carrying on his enterprise. 

18. This conclusion extends to all items in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet categorised under the account ‘Ford Ranger (3200’) for the Relevant Tax Periods of March, April and May 2023[103] together with the following items categorised under the account ‘General Expenses (429)’ for tools, equipment and other expenses relating to the Ford Ranger:  items 163, 236.

    [103] It is noted that this includes the travel related expenses arising from the trip to collect the Ford Ranger from the dealership.

19. The Applicant also said that he did not use the Ford Ranger for personal use during the Relevant Tax Periods. 

20. As the Applicant only purchased the Ford Ranger in May 2023, the last monthly period of the Relevant Tax Periods, it is difficult for the Tribunal to make any finding in relation to private or personal use of that vehicle, particularly where the Applicant said he left it parked and unused for an extended period.  The Tribunal does not significant weight on the Applicant’s use of the Ford Ranger in 2025 for the trip to Albury.  However it is not necessary for the Tribunal to address this point as it has found that the Applicant did not acquire the Ford Ranger (to any extent) in carrying on his business or enterprise.

21. Nevertheless, the Tribunal does believe that a number of items of expenditure categorised under account Ford Ranger (3200) are by their nature indicative of private or domestic expenditure.  This includes such items as multiple purchases of food from various fast food outlets, the purchase of toothbrush and toothpaste from Coles and an amount of $715 spent on a one night stay in a spa suite at The Star hotel in Sydney.  The Applicant contended that these purchases were made in the carrying on of his enterprise because they were made while he was travelling to collect the Ford Ranger.  Leaving aside the question of whether the Ford Ranger can be categorised as a prop for his business, the Tribunal finds that these types of expenses are of a private or domestic nature.

    Expenses relating to vehicles other than the Ford Ranger

22. The following discussion relates to items categorised as ‘BMW (3100)’ and ‘Motor Vehicle Expenses (449).’  The Tribunal observes that this discussion focusses on the BMW F30.  Although the Applicant indicated that he was unsure whether other vehicles might have been used in his business It has been confirmed that other vehicles referenced during the Objection process were purchased, or their claimed business use commenced, after the Relevant Tax Periods.[104]

    [104] See the log book records for the A45 AMG and GLA 250, and paragraph 49 of the Applicant’s closing submissions.

23. The Applicant said that the log book records for the BMW F30 accurately recorded business related trips, including driving to various retail outlets to purchase goods or services for his business that are the subject of other claims for input tax credits (for example, items for the office).  For the reasons given previously, the Tribunal is not satisfied that those goods and services were acquired for the purposes of the Applicant’s business. 

24. During cross-examination the Applicant:

    (a)Could not explain why fuel expenses for larger volumes of fuel were claimed for the BMW F30 when that vehicle apparently was not driven for a corresponding number of kilometres.

    (b)Indicated that he was not certain about which vehicle(s) might have been used for business related trips at various time.

    (c)Acknowledged that the BMW F30 was insured for private usage only but said that this was a mistake.

25. The Tribunal does not believe the evidence provided by the Applicant is sufficient to establish the business purpose and use for the BMW F30 asserted by him. The Tribunal therefore does not believe the Applicant has discharged his onus of proof in relation to input tax credits claimed in relation to the BMW F30 or motor vehicle expenses as they relate to the BMW F30. 

26. The Tribunal additionally notes that:

    (a)The description of some items set out under the account category BMW (3100) indicate no apparent relationship to the vehicle.[105]

    (b)Some fuel purchases are attributed to the BMW (3100) account while others are recorded under Motor Vehicle Expenses (449) account.  It is not clear whether this suggests these fuel purchases are referable to another vehicle or vehicles.

    [105] For example, Item 42 ‘Post Fence Stars’, Item 50 ‘Coles Express – Business’, Item 43 ‘Kmart’.

27. The Tribunal finds that none of the items set out under the BMW (3100) or Motor Vehicle Expenses (449) accounts represent creditable acquisitions.

    Other items of expenditure

28. Several items were not designated by reference to a particular account.  In some instances the description of the item in the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet and any supporting receipt or invoice suggest that it is related to the construction of the Building[106] or the BMW F30 or other motor vehicle expenses.[107]  The Tribunal finds that those items are not creditable acquisitions for the same reasons as given above in relation to expenditure on the Building, the BMW F30 and other motor vehicle expenses.

    [106] See for example Items 64, 67 to 69, 74 to 78, 110, 135 to 136, 140, 199 to 201, 206, 210 to 211, 213, 225, purchases for concrete and payments to Southern Cross Sheds.  Some of these items appear to be additional items claimed after the Objection process.

    [107] See items described as purchases of fuel.

29. Other items which are not categorised to an account are identified only by reference to the name of the supplier and other generic descriptions[108] and in the absence of any other evidence indicating the nature of the purchase the Tribunal is unable to find that they represented creditable acquisitions.

    [108] See for example items described as ‘Bunnings.’  Re Item 4 ‘Office Supplies Bunnings’, during cross-examination the Applicant also indicated that he could not recall what this purchase was for.

    CONCLUSION

30. Although the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a commitment to his business and its development, and aspects of his wider narrative of events are plausible, there is an absence of reliable evidence supporting key factual matters underpinning this narrative.  This creates a difficulty for the Applicant who bears the onus of proof in relation to issues involving the attribution of expenditure and purchases to particular time periods.

31. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has discharged his onus of proving his entitlement to input tax credits for the significant majority  of items claimed.  

32. At paragraph 125 Tribunal has identified three transactions from the Receipt Summary Spreadsheet where it believes that the supporting documentation supports the conclusion that purchases were made for a creditable purpose such that the items purchased are creditable acquisitions.  The Tribunal otherwise affirms the Objection Decision as it relates to each remaining transaction in relation to which input tax credits were claimed by the Applicant.

Dates of hearing:	26 and 27 June, 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Alexander Upton and Cheney Sewpersad of Butler McDermott Lawyers
Counsel for the Applicant:	Laura Allen
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Brooke Tranent of the Australian Tax Office
Counsel for the Respondent:	Norman Hanna