Lake Fox Limited and Commissioner of Taxation

[2012] AATA 265

Division TAXATION APPEALS DIVISION

File Number(s)

2011/0407

Re

Lake Fox Limited

APPLICANT

And

Commissioner of Taxation

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Deputy President P E Hack SC

Date 4 May 2012

Place Brisbane
The respondent's objection is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for the purposes of reassessing the applicant's fringe benefits tax liability for the year ending 31 March 2010 on the basis that no part of the payments of employee health insurance was an exempt payment pursuant to s 58M of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth).
........................................................................
Deputy President P E Hack SC
Catchwords
TAXATION – Fringe Benefits Tax - private health insurance provided to employees - fatigue management - whether cost is an “exempt benefit” - work-related medical screening - work-related preventative health care - expenditure not in respect of defined matters – - decision set aside and remitted for reassessment.
Legislation
Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) ss 20, 58M (1), 58M (2), 136 (1), 143E
Taxation Laws Amendment (Fringe benefits and Substantiation) Bill 1987 (Cth) ss 58L and 143E
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Fatigue Management) Regulation 2008 Cl 7
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President P E Hack SC
4 May 2012
Introduction

Lake Fox Limited operates a major road transport business known as Rocky’s Own Transport Co. It is based in Rockhampton but has depots, and employees, in other parts of Queensland and in Western Australia. It employs in excess of 230 people in three main areas – transport, maintenance and administration.
By all accounts Lake Fox is keenly interested in the health and welfare of its employees, so much so that it subsidises, or meets completely, the cost of private health insurance cover for over 100 of its employees. It does so, it says, in order to comply with legislative regimes governing fatigue in long distance truck drivers.
The issue that arises in this case is whether that cost is an “exempt benefit” within the meaning of that term in s 58M (1) or (2) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) (FBTAA). The respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation, decided that it was not.
Lake Fox seeks a review of the Commissioner’s decision. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Commissioner’s decision was correct in substance, but not correct as to the amount. The decision under review will be set aside and the matter remitted to the Commissioner to make an assessment of the correct (and larger) amount of FBT for the year ended 31 March 2010.
The legislation
The general scheme of the FBTAA is well known. An employer is liable to pay tax on “fringe benefits” provided to employees (or associates of employees) in respect of their employment. It is unnecessary to have regard to the mechanism for the taxing of benefits; it is common ground that the payments answered the description of “expense payment benefit” in s 20 of the FBTAA and that, subject only to the question whether they are exempt benefits, they otherwise satisfy the description of “fringe benefit” in s 136 (1) of the FBTAA. That definition excludes,
a benefit that is an exempt benefit in relation to the year of tax…
Lake Fox relies upon s 58M (1) and (2) to contend that the payments are exempt benefits. Those subsections, so far as they are material, provide,
(1) Where any of the following benefits is provided in respect of the employment of an employee:
(a) an expense payment benefit where the recipients expenditure is in respect of:
(i)a work-related medical examination of the employee;
(ii)a work-related medical screening of the employee;
(iii)work-related preventative healthcare of the employee;
(iv)work-related counselling of the employee or of an associate of the employee; or
…
(b) …
(2)Where:
(a) … an expense payment benefit … is provided in, or in respect of, a year of tax in respect of the employment of an employee of an employer;
(b)the benefit is associated with:
(i)a work‑related medical examination of the employee;
(ii)work‑related medical screening of the employee;
(iii)work‑related preventative health care of the employee;
(iv)work‑related counselling of the employee or of an associate of the employee; or
(v)…; and
(c)in the case of an expense payment benefit:
(i)the benefit is not constituted by the reimbursement of the recipient, in whole or in part, in respect of an amount of a Division 28 car expense incurred by the recipient in relation to a car owned by, or leased to, the recipient, being a reimbursement calculated by reference to the distance travelled by the car; and
(ii)documentary evidence of the recipients expenditure is obtained by the recipient and that documentary evidence, or a copy, is given to the employer before the declaration date;
the benefit is an exempt benefit in relation to the year of tax.
Section 136 (1) includes the following definitions which are relevant to these proceedings:
work‑related counselling:
(a)in relation to an employee of an employer, means counselling attended by the employee; and
(b)in relation to an associate of an employee of an employer, means counselling attended by the associate where the associate is accompanied by the employee;
where all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(c)the attendance of:
(i)if paragraph (a) applies—the employee; and
(ii)if paragraph (b) applies—both the employee and the associate;
at the counselling gives effect to an objective, purpose, plan or policy devised, adopted or required to be followed, by the employer to:
(iii)improve or maintain the quality of the performance of employees’ duties; or
(iv)prepare employees for retirement;
(d)the counselling relates to any of the following matters:
(i)safety;
(ii)health;
(iii)fitness;
(iv)stress management;
(v)personal relationships;
(vi)retirement problems;
(vii)drug or alcohol abuse;
(viii)rehabilitation or prevention of work‑related trauma or of other disease or injury;
(ix)first aid;
(x)any similar matter;
(e)there is no benefit that:
(i)is provided in respect of the employment of the employee;
(ii)consists of the provision of, or relates to, the counselling; and
(iii)is provided wholly or principally as a reward for services rendered or to be rendered by the employee.
work‑related medical examination, in relation to a benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee, means an examination or test carried out by, or on behalf of, an audiometrist or a legally qualified medical practitioner, nurse, dentist or optometrist wholly or principally in order to ascertain the physiological or psychological condition of the employee for any or all of the following purposes:
(a)the commencement of the employment of the employee;
(b)the confirmation of probationary employment of the employee;
(c)a change in the duties or location of the employment of the employee;
(d)the employee becoming a member of a superannuation fund.
work‑related medical screening, in relation to an employee of an employer, means an examination or test carried out by, or on behalf of, an audiometrist or a legally qualified medical practitioner, nurse, dentist or optometrist wholly or principally in order to ascertain whether the employee has suffered, is suffering or is at risk of suffering, from work‑related trauma, but does not include an examination or test that is not made available generally to all employees of the employer:
(a)who are likely to have suffered, be suffering or be at risk of suffering, from similar work‑related trauma;
(b)who perform the duties of their employment at or near the place where the employee performs the duties of his or her employment; and
(c)whose duties of employment are similar to those of the employee.
work‑related preventative health care, in relation to an employee of an employer, means any form of care provided by, or on behalf of, a legally qualified medical practitioner, nurse, dentist or optometrist wholly or principally in order to prevent the employee suffering from work‑related trauma, but does not include a form of care that is not made available generally to all employees of the employer:
(a)who are likely to be at risk of suffering from similar

work‑related trauma;
(b)who perform the duties of their employment at or near the place where the employee performs the duties of his or her employment; and
(c)whose duties of employment are similar to those of the employee.
work‑related trauma, in relation to an employee, means:
(a)the injury of the employee (including the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of an injury of the employee);
(b)the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease of the employee;
(c)the loss or destruction of, or damage to:
(i)an artificial limb or other artificial substitute;
(ii)a medical, surgical or similar aid or appliance used by the employee; or
(iii)clothing worn by the employee; or
(d)the coming into existence, the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of any other physiological or psychological condition in relation to the employee that is or may be harmful or disadvantageous to, or result in harm or disadvantage to, the employee;
that is related to any employment of the employee.
Finally, it is necessary to note the definition of work-related trauma as,
work‑related trauma, in relation to an employee, means:
(a)the injury of the employee (including the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of an injury of the employee);
(b)the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease of the employee;
(c)the loss or destruction of, or damage to:
(i)an artificial limb or other artificial substitute;
(ii)a medical, surgical or similar aid or appliance used by the employee; or
(iii)clothing worn by the employee; or
(d)the coming into existence, the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of any other physiological or psychological condition in relation to the employee that is or may be harmful or disadvantageous to, or result in harm or disadvantage to, the employee;
that is related to any employment of the employee.
Factual background
There is no dispute about the primary facts. Lake Fox specialises in carrying high explosives for the mining industry; it is, apparently, the largest carrier of such goods in Australia. It has, as well, a general freight operation but, by and large, its drivers are on the road driving for long periods of time. It has, for example, two trucks that permanently circumnavigate Australia distributing product from an explosives manufacturer and another route from Kalgoorlie in Western Australia to a mine in the Tanami Desert in the Northern Territory.
It is notorious that there has been increasing concern on the part of governments with fatigue on the part of long distance truck drivers and the social costs of accidents caused by fatigue. In Queensland that concern led to the promulgation of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Fatigue Management) Regulation 2008 (Qld) (the Queensland regulations). The Queensland regulations impose upon persons in the “chain of responsibility” - a term apt to include not only Lake Fox and its drivers but also loaders and schedulers - the obligation to,
take all reasonable steps to ensure a person … does not drive the vehicle on a road while the person is impaired by fatigue.
There are similar, but not identical, regulations in Western Australia.
The Queensland regulations contemplate accreditation at two levels – Basic Fatigue Management and Advanced Fatigue Management. Lake Fox became AFM accredited in March 2009. As part of that accreditation it was required to have in place an “AFM fatigue management system”. That term is defined in the Queensland regulations as meaning a system for ensuring compliance with the AFM standards and business rules including, relevantly, by,
ensuring that each of the drivers is in a fit state-
(i) to safely perform required duties; and
(ii) to meet any specified medical requirements …
AFM Standards have been promulgated by the Australian Transport Council. Lake Fox places particular reliance on clause 7 of those standards, dealing with health. The standard prescribed is that drivers “are to participate in a health management system to identify and manage fatigue risks”. That standard is described in this way,
A health management system is to be implemented that address, as a minimum, sleep disorders, medical; history, substance abuse and diet, and provides preventative and remedial measures to assist drivers in the management of their health.
To satisfy that standard, an operator must demonstrate the following:
7.1drivers are certified as being fit to drive a heavy vehicle by a medical practitioner according to the Assessing Fitness to drive by Ausroads (or equivalent document approved by the Australian Transport Council). The examination must include an assessment to detect drivers in the high risk group for sleep disorders. Examinations are to be conducted, as a minimum, once every three years for drivers aged 49 years or under, and yearly for drivers aged 50 or over.
7.2any medical advice for drivers is taken into account when assigning duties; and
7.3drivers are provided information to promote and encourage better management of their health.[1]
[1] Exhibit 3 at page 9.
Lake Fox put on considerable material, and devoted a considerable part of its argument, to matters involving fatigue. On the view I take of the matter fatigue management does no more than provide a setting. The FBTAA does not require any enquiry into the motivation for an employer to provide benefits; it is irrelevant for present purposes whether the employer was required to provide the benefits, did so out of a concern for the welfare of employees or because it perceived that it would result in a more productive workforce (or a combination of them). The sole question is whether the expenditure satisfies the statutory criteria.
It will suffice to say that as part of its commitment to managing its AFM obligations Lake Fox determined “to offer a health scheme arrangement to employees”[2]. Mr Bryant, its Chief Financial Officer, says that the decision was motivated by the company’s need to take reasonable steps to manage its statutory obligations however, as I have said, its motivation in the present context is irrelevant. Lake Fox entered into a Corporate Health and Wellbeing Agreement (the Plan) with the well-known health insurance provider, MBF Australia Pty Ltd[3] (MBF) dated 21 July 2009. There are two aspects to the Plan, access for employees to health insurance cover and what is described as a “wellness program”. Under that latter program, MBF has agreed to provide what might be described as preventative health clinics at Lake Fox’s depots, providing access to qualified advice on matters of diet, health and well-being, immunisation, stress analysis and suchlike. But these matters may be put to one side as it is common ground that no wellness programs were undertaken in the FBT year ending 31 March 2010 and that no part of the costs incurred by Lake Fox were in respect of wellness programs.
[2] Exhibit 4, paragraph [27].
[3] Now known as Bupa Australia Pty Ltd.
All of the costs that Lake Fox incurred were in the payment of premiums payable by permanent employees on health insurance with MBF. Prior to the program very few employees had cover. Under the Lake Fox scheme each employee was free to choose the level of cover and whether it was to be single, family or some other rate. Lake Fox paid 40% of the premium for employees with less than two years’ service, 60% for employees with service between two and four years, 80% for employees with service between four and five years and 100% where service exceeds five years. Lake Fox initially paid the entire premium and, where necessary, recovered any amount payable by employees from the employees’ wages.
The Commissioner’s submissions[4] summarise the arrangements, accurately as it seems to me, in these terms:
In summary, a permanent employee of [Lake Fox] is able to choose whether to take out one of the MBF health insurance products offered by the Plan. If an employee does so:
(a)Lake Fox funds the membership premium (being the Contribution Rates) for the chosen product by paying the full premium to MBF quarterly in advance;
(b)Lake Fox later recovers from the employee the proportion (if any) of the premium that Lake Fox does not subsidise for the particular employee. That recovery is done by a weekly deduction in arrears from the employee’s pay…
(c)the employee becomes a Policyholder, bound by the Fund Rules and Product Rules;
(d)the employee is responsible for ensuring the premiums are paid;^[[5]]
(e)each employee’s MBF card is in the name of the employee but bears a note that it is an MBF Corporate Health Card…
[4] Exhibit 15 at paragraph [32].
[5] That is, Lake Fox has not contracted with MBF for it to pay the premiums.
The cover provided by MBF to the employees under the Plan was typical of the health insurance cover ordinarily provided to other policy holders who were not parties to a corporate health plan. However described, it provided hospital cover and “extras” cover i.e. it covered the insured’s costs of hospital treatment as an inpatient, including attention as an inpatient from registered medical practitioners, and a variety of other costs incurred on allied health professionals – dentists, opticians, physiotherapists, chiropractors etc. or for pharmaceuticals. It did not insure against the cost of attending a medical practitioner, whether a general practitioner or specialist, otherwise than as an inpatient in a hospital. Those costs were recoverable under the universal health cover scheme, Medicare.
Lake Fox sought a private ruling on this issue in October 2009. An adverse ruling was made by the Commissioner on 5 February 2010. Lake Fox lodged an objection to the ruling on 6 April 2010. On 4 June 2010 Lake Fox lodged its 2010 FBT return on the footing that a total of $266,136 had been incurred on health insurance premiums for employees. It treated one third of that amount, the sum of $88,711, as exempt benefits under s 58M of the FBTAA leaving gross fringe benefits of $177,425. From that amount it deducted the sum of $89,038 representing the amounts recovered from employees leaving a net benefit of $88,387. The lodging of the return gave rise to a deemed assessment of the liability of Lake Fox. By agreement, on 30 June 2010 Lake Fox withdrew its objection to the Commissioner’s ruling and, instead, objected to the assessment. On 8 December 2010 the Commissioner disallowed the objection. The Commissioner appears to have taken the view, wrongly it would seem, that the one third reduction was attributable to the “wellness component” of the amount paid to MBF. So far as I can tell the Commissioner’s objection decision determined that none of the amounts paid were exempt benefits but it appears that no amended assessment was made to give effect to that view.
These proceedings were commenced on 4 February 2011.
The parties’ arguments
The argument for Lake Fox centres on s 58M of the FBTAA. It contends that the payments were provided in respect of the employment of the employees and that the payments were expense payment benefits in respect of one or other of the matters in sub-paragraph (i) to (iv) of s 58M (1)(a). Alternatively, it says, the payments were “associated” benefits that come within s 58M (2).

The Commissioner accepts that the payments were benefits provided in respect of the employee’s employment and that the payments satisfied the definition of expense payment benefit. But he says that the expenditure was not in respect of the matters enumerated in s 58M (1)(a) of the FBTAA; it was expenditure to buy insurance that might cover employees against costs associated with such matters. And, he says, Lake Fox’s s 58M (2) argument must fail if its primary argument fails because s 58 M (2) of the FBTAA is directed to incidental expenses associated with obtaining the direct benefits contemplated by s 58 M (1) of the FBTAA.
Consideration
The payment of premiums by Lake Fox is conceded to be an expense payment benefit. That is so, in the language of s 20 of the FBTAA, because Lake Fox (as “provider”) has made a payment in discharge, in whole or in part, of the obligations of other persons, its employees (each of whom is a “recipient”), to pay an amount to a third person (MBF), in respect of expenditure incurred by the recipient (the MBF premium). Thus the key issue is whether the employee expenditure on the premium is “in respect of” one or other of the work-related medical examination, work-related medical screening, work-related preventative health care or work-related counselling. The case for Lake Fox focussed on work-related medical screening and work-related preventative health care.
The words “in respect of”, it has been said[6],
…have no fixed meaning. They are capable of having a very wide meaning denoting a relationship or connection between two things or subject matters. However, the words must, as with any other statutory expression, be given a meaning that depends on the context in which the words are found…
In that case, which concerned the expression “in respect of the employment” in the FBTAA, the Full Court held[7] that the Tribunal had been right to conclude that the phrase required a “nexus, some discernable and rational link, between the benefit and employment”[8] but that, of itself, was insufficient – what is required is a sufficient link for the purposes of the particular legislation[9]. When considering whether a benefit provided was in respect of employment it will be helpful to ask “whether the benefit is a product or incident of the employment.
[6] J & G Knowles & Associates Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 96 FCR 402 at 408 [22].
[7] At [23].
[8]That phrase is taken from the judgment of Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ in Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government finance Office (Q). (1989) 167 CLR 45, 47.
[9] Citing Commissioner of Taxation v Sully (2000) 201 CLR 148.
Lake Fox contends that there is a sufficient nexus between the payment of MBF premiums and work-related medical screening and work-related preventative health care. Mr Bickford of counsel, who led Mr Henry of counsel for Lake Fox, drew attention to the connecting phrases in s 58M (1)(b) (“where the recipients property is required solely for the purposes of”) and s 58M (1)(c) (“where the recipients benefit consists of the provision of”) which qualify the same “work-related” matters as appear in s 58M (1)(a) of the FBTAA. That context, it was said, suggested that the requirement of “in respect of” be construed widely.
The required nexus with work-related medical screening arose because of the wish of Lake Fox that its employees avail themselves of the services provided by MBF, including examinations and tests to ascertain whether the employees have suffered, are suffering, or are at risk of suffering, from work-related trauma and to comply with its statutory obligation. Suffering from work-related trauma, it is said, is likely to adversely affect the employee in the performance of employment duties. Health and fatigue go hand in hand and a healthy workforce is better able to manage fatigue than an unhealthy one. There is, in this way, a discernible and rational link, or a sufficient or material connection, between the recipient’s expenditure and work-related medical screening.
A similar argument was advanced in relation to work-related preventative health care.
Whilst I accept that it is desirable for Lake Fox to have a healthy workforce and worthy of it to expend its funds to achieve that end I cannot accept its arguments. There is no sufficient connection between the payment of the premium and either work-related medical screening or work-related preventative health care.
The question is one of characterisation – what is the nature of the expenditure in question? The answer must be that it is expenditure to acquire health insurance, that is, it is expenditure “in respect of” health insurance. The fact that the insurance might, in turn, cover the employee for the cost of expenditure on what might be capable of being characterised as expenditure on work-related medical screening or work-related preventative health care does not change the character of the expenditure as expenditure in respect of medical insurance. A fortiori where, on the most charitable view, cover against expenditure on work-related medical screening or work-related preventative health care is a very small part of the overall cover provided and much expenditure on work-related medical screening or work-related preventative health care e.g. any expense on medical practitioners otherwise than as in inpatient, would not be covered by the policy.
The definition of “work-related medical screening” requires that there be an examination or test, carried out by an appropriately qualified person, to ascertain whether the employee had, or was at risk of having, work-related trauma. The definition of “work-related” preventative health care is similarly constructed. It requires that there be care provided, by a qualified person, in order to prevent work-related trauma. In both cases the procedure of screening or care must be one made generally available to other employees in a similar situation. But in each case there is a purposive element – “in order to ascertain whether” and “in order to prevent.” No question of the motivation of the employer in providing the expense payment benefit arises.
Payment of a health insurance premium does not have the purpose identified; it has the purpose of insuring the employee against the costs of medical and other treatment. In fact the likelihood is that the MBF cover would not extend to screening or preventative health care because of the requirement that it be made generally available to similarly placed employees. Moreover the health cover extended far beyond matters that might arguably fall, as a matter of fact, within the two categories relied on as the schedule of benefits actually paid amply demonstrates.
In that regard, and whilst not informing the construction of the section, reference to the evidence of the benefits paid by MBF to employees under the individual policies tends to confirm that the premium payment was not in respect of work-related medical screening or work-related preventative health care. Whilst the details are sparse (and it is not known whether the treatment was for an employee or a family member of an employee) what is known suggests that none of the benefits paid were paid in respect of treatment that answered the requirement of purpose within the definition.
I am, then, not satisfied that the expenditure was in respect of any of the matters enumerated in s 58M (1)(a)(i) to (iv). I do not accept the first argument for Lake Fox.
The alternative argument, that based on s 58M (2), also fails. It is, as the Commissioner submits, directed to incidental expenses associated with obtaining the direct benefits contemplated by s 58M (1). That flows from the plain words of the sub-section. But Mr O’Donnell QC, who appeared with Mr Thawley of counsel, for the Commissioner, drew attention to s 143E of the FBTAA and the Explanatory Memorandum. Section 143E of the FBTAA provides:
143E Work‑related medical examinations, work‑related medical screening, work‑related preventative health care, work‑related counselling, migrant language training
For the purposes of this Act, where:
(a) any of the following benefits is provided in, or in respect of, a year of tax in respect of the employment of an employee:
(i) a car benefit relating to a particular car where the application or availability of the car is in respect of the provision of transport;
(ii) an expense payment benefit where the recipients expenditure is in respect of the provision of transport, or meals or accommodation in connection with transport;
(iii) a property benefit where the recipients property consists of meals in connection with transport;
(iv) a residual benefit where the recipients benefit consists of the provision of transport or accommodation in connection with transport;
(b) the transport is required solely because:
(i) the employee attends:
(A) a work‑related medical examination of the employee;
(B) work‑related medical screening of the employee;
(C) work‑related preventative health care of the employee;
(D) work‑related counselling of the employee; or
(E) migrant language training of the employee; or
(ii) an associate of the employee attends:
(A) work‑related counselling of the associate; or
(B) migrant language training of the associate;
(c) if subparagraph (b)(i) applies—the transport, meals or accommodation is for the employee; and
(d) if subparagraph (b)(ii) applies—the transport, meals or accommodation is for the associate of the employee;
the benefit shall be taken to be associated with:
(e) a work‑related medical examination of the employee;
(f) work‑related medical screening of the employee;
(g) work‑related preventative health care of the employee;
(h) work‑related counselling of the employee or of the associate of the employee; or
(j) migrant language training of the employee or of the associate of the employee;
as the case requires.
The matter is put beyond doubt by Part B of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Fringe benefits and Substantiation) Bill 1987 (Cth). That Bill introduced ss 58L and 143E. The commentary to s 58M (2) of the Bill (numbered 58L(2) in the Act as passed) said:
Subsection 58M (2) ensures that certain benefits which meet travel costs incurred in attending work-related medical examinations, work-related medical screening, work-related preventative health care, work-related counselling and migrant language training will be exempt. The benefits which qualify for this exemption are defined in proposed section 143E.
Conversely, the commentary of proposed s 143 said:
Proposed section 143E specifies the circumstances in which a benefit will be eligible for concessional treatment under subsection 58M(2) or section 61F.
It follows that I do not accept Lake Fox’s alternative argument and that I do not consider the payments made by it to be exempt benefits.
Disposition
Although the Commissioner reached the same view on the objection decision, that view was not given effect to by an amended assessment. It remains the case that the assessment based upon a one-third valuation for the benefits which were, as I have held, not exempt. Thus the only present assessment is for an incorrect amount. The appropriate course would seem to be to set aside the objection decision (on the basis that the amount of the assessment is not correct) and remit the matter to the Commissioner to reassess on the footing that no part of the payments were exempt benefits.
There is no question, on these circumstances, of certifying that the proceedings have terminated in a manner favourable to Lake Fox. They have not.

I certify that the preceding 37 (thirty seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P E Hack SC.

........................................................................
Associate
Dated 4 May 2012

Date(s) of hearing 15 March 2012

Date final submissions received 15 March 2012

Counsel for the Applicant Mr PG Bickford and Mr M Henry

Solicitors for the Applicant Gadens Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent Mr BD O'Donnell QC and Mr T Thawley

Solicitors for the Respondent ATO Legal Practice

[2012] AATA 265

4 May 2012

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Taxation Law

Legal Concepts

Fringe Benefits Tax

Expense Payment Benefit

Statutory Interpretation

Nexus

Division	TAXATION APPEALS DIVISION
File Number(s)	2011/0407
Re	Lake Fox Limited
APPLICANT
And	Commissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Deputy President P E Hack SC
Date	4 May 2012
Place	Brisbane

Date(s) of hearing	15 March 2012
Date final submissions received	15 March 2012
Counsel for the Applicant	Mr PG Bickford and Mr M Henry
Solicitors for the Applicant	Gadens Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr BD O'Donnell QC and Mr T Thawley
Solicitors for the Respondent	ATO Legal Practice