Spencer and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

Spencer and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2021] AATA 1106 (3 May 2021)
Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2019/7441
Re:Shannon Spencer
APPLICANT

AndCommissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:L RIEPER MEMBER
Date:3 May 2021
Place:Hobart

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that:
(a)In the financial year ending on 30 June 2017 the sums of $21.50 and $1,530.00, comprising work-related clothing expenses and business kilometres respectively and incurred by the applicant are allowable as deductions under s 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
(b)In the financial year ending on 30 June 2018 the sums of $29.75 and $2,706.00, comprising work-related clothing expenses and business kilometres respectively and incurred by the applicant are allowable as deductions under s 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

.......................[sgd].........................................
L Rieper, Member
TAXATION AND REVENUE – income tax – deductions – employee – work-related travel expenses – running costs – internet and telephone expenses – objection decision relating to income tax set aside and substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)
Cases
Bhatti v Commissioner of Taxation (2016) 102 ATR 702
Ronpibon Tin NL & Tong Kah Compound NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 47
Commissioner of Taxation v Payne (2001) 202 CLR 93
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION

Mr Spencer seeks a review of an objection decision by the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) dated 22 October 2019 in which a number of deductions claimed by Mr Spencer for the financial years ending on 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 were disallowed.
The parties have agreed that this application should be determined without a hearing and the Tribunal is satisfied, in accordance with s 34J of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act), that the issues for determination on review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. The Tribunal has therefore proceeded to review the decision by considering the evidence before it without holding a hearing but with the assistance of written submissions from each party. The Tribunal has had regard to the documents provided by the Commissioner in accordance with s 37 of the AAT Act, and the documents identified by each party in their lists of documents.
ISSUES
The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether Mr Spencer is entitled to deductions for the following items and amounts:
Financial year ending on 30 June 2017
Work-related car expenses (cents per kilometre method)   $6,600.00
Work-related clothing expenses (bamboo socks)  $20.00
Home internet expenses ($50.00 already allowed)  $129.97
Mobile telephone expenses ($50.00 already allowed)  $239.00
Financial year ending on 30 June 2018
Work-related car expenses (cents per kilometre method)   $6,600.00
Home internet expenses ($50.00 already allowed)  $680.06
Mobile telephone expenses ($50.00 already allowed)  $568.00
Prior to the Tribunal reviewing the decision, the Commissioner conceded the claims Mr Spencer had made for work-related clothing, in the form of gloves and a beanie, on the basis they were protective clothing related to his work outdoors in cold conditions. The Commissioner accepts that Mr Spencer’s taxable income for the financial year ending on 30 June 2017 should be reduced by $21.50 and his taxable income for the financial year ending on 30 June 2018 should be reduced by $29.75. The Tribunal is satisfied that the concession is appropriate.
The Tribunal must satisfy itself as to whether the remaining claimed expenses are deductible in accordance with s 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA) and, if so, whether they have been substantiated under div 900 of the ITAA.
Mr Spencer is a Water Services Operator, Service Delivery employed by Tasmanian Water & Sewerage Corporation Pty Limited (TasWater).
On 13 October 2017 Mr Spencer lodged his income tax return for the financial year ending on 30 June 2017.[1] Mr Spencer claimed the following deductions:
D1      Work related car expenses                $6,600.00
D3      Work related clothing expenses        $148.00
D5      Other work related expenses             $2,413.00
[1] T3, T Documents, 28.
On 20 October 2017 a Notice of Assessment was issued to Mr Spencer on the basis of the income tax return lodged on 13 October 2017.[2] The outcome was that Mr Spencer was entitled to a refund of $3,214.44 which had been forwarded to his bank.
[2] T4, T Documents, 36
On 9 October 2018 Mr Spencer lodged his income tax return for the financial year ending on 30 June 2018.[3] Mr Spencer claimed the following deductions:
D1      Work related car expenses                $6,600.00
D3      Work related clothing expenses        $147.00
D5      Other work related expenses             $3,036.00
[3] T5, T Documents, 38.
On 16 October 2018 a Notice of Assessment was issued to Mr Spencer on the basis of the income tax return lodged on 9 October 2018.[4] The outcome was that Mr Spencer was entitled to a refund of $3,594.67 which had been forwarded to his bank.
[4] T6, T Documents, 46.
By letter dated 22 March 2019 Mr Spencer was advised that his 2017 and 2018 income tax returns were being audited.[5] He was advised that this was because his work-related expense claims were higher than expected compared to similar taxpayers with the same occupation and level of income. The items being audited included the items at D1, D3 and D5 of each of the income tax returns. He was asked to provide additional information by 23 April 2019, including an explanation as to how his claims related to his job.
[5] T7, T Documents, 48–55.
On 8 April 2019 Mr Spencer provided further information in support of his expense claims.[6]
[6] T9, T Documents, 57–107.
A further request for information was made on 17 April 2019[7] and Mr Spencer responded on 28 April 2019.[8]
[7] T10, T Documents, 108–21.
[8] T11, T Documents, 122–30.
Mr Spencer was advised of the outcome of the audit by letter dated 30 May 2019.[9] The relevant deductions were amended as follows:
Financial year ending 30 June 2017
Original amounts       New amounts
D1      Work related car expenses                $6,600.00                   $0.00
D3      Work related clothing expenses        $148.00  $199.00
D5      Other work-related expenses            $2,413.00                   $1,364.00
[9] T13, T Documents, 140–6.
Financial year ending 30 June 2018
Original amounts       New amounts
D1      Work related car expenses                $6,600.00                   $0.00
D3      Work related clothing expenses        $147.00  $147.00
D5      Other work-related expenses            $3,036.00                   $1,659.00
On 6 June 2019 Notices of Amended Assessment in respect of both disputed financial years were issued to Mr Spencer. The result of the assessment for the financial year ended 30 June 2017 was that Mr Spencer owed the sum of $3,219.31.[10] The result of the assessment for the financial year ended 30 June 2018 was that Mr Spencer owed the sum of $3,364.86.[11]
[10] T17, T Documents, 166–9.
[11] T18, T Documents, 170–3.
Mr Spencer lodged an objection in respect of each amended assessment on 14 June 2019[12] and provided further information in support of his objection on 1 October 2019[13] and 20 October 2019.[14]
[12] T19, T Documents, 174–9.
[13] T24, T Documents, 188–9.
[14] T26, T Documents, 192–6.
On 22 October 2019 Mr Spencer’s objection was disallowed by the Commissioner.[15]
[15] T28, T Documents, 202–10.
LEGISLATION
On an application for review of a reviewable objection decision, such as this, s 14ZZK(b)(i) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA) places the burden on Mr Spencer to prove that the assessment is excessive or otherwise incorrect and what the assessment should have been.
The general provision with regards to the deductibility of expenses is contained in s8-1 of the ITAA, which provides:
8-1 General Deductions
(1) You can deduct from your assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that:
(a) it is incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income; or
(b) it is necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing your assessable income.
(2) However, you cannot deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent that:
(a) it is a loss or outgoing of capital, or of a capital nature;
(b) it is a loss or outgoing of a private or domestic nature;
(c) it is incurred in relation to gaining or producing your exempt income; or
(d) a provision of this Act prevents you from deducting it.
(3) A loss or outgoing that you can deduct under this section is called a general deduction.
Section 900-15 of the ITAA provides:
900-15 Getting written evidence
(1) To deduct a work expense:
(a) it must qualify as a deduction under some provision of this Act outside this Division; and
(b) you need to substantiate it by getting written evidence. Subdivision 900-E tells you about the evidence you need.
In Bhatti v Commissioner of Taxation (2016) 102 ATR 702 at [31], Senior Member Lazanas explained the substantiation requirements as follows:
Subdivision 900-E is directed towards the written evidence required for the purposes of s 900-15. Section 900-105 explains that the legislation provides for a set of rules for getting written evidence to substantiate deductions and that the rules that can be used depend on the type of expense. Section 900-110 provides that there is no time limit for getting written evidence of an expense (unless the expense is recorded by the taxpayer in specified situations), “[b]ut until you get written evidence of it, you are not entitled to a deduction for the expense”. Section 900-110(2) further provides that if “when you lodge your *income tax return for the income year you have good reason to expect to get written evidence of the expense within a reasonable time, you can deduct the expense without actually getting the evidence. But if you don’t get the evidence within a reasonable time, your entitlement to the deduction ceases...”
Section 900-115 in sub-div 900-E sets out the requirements in relation to written evidence from a supplier as follows:
900-115 Written evidence from supplier
.....
(2) You must get a document from the supplier of the goods or services the expense is for. The document must set out:
(a) the name or business name of the supplier; and
(b) the amount of the expense, expressed in the currency in which it was incurred; and
(c) the nature of the goods or services; and
(d) the day the expense was incurred; and
(e) the day it is made out.
(3) There are 2 exceptions to these requirements:
(a) if the document does not show the day the expense was incurred, you may use a bank statement or other reasonable, independent evidence that shows when it was paid;
(b) if the document the supplier gave you does not specify the nature of the goods or services, you may write in the missing details yourself before you lodge your *income tax return for the income year.
...
EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERATION
The position description in respect of Mr Spencer’s role is in evidence.[16] The primary objective of the role is said to be responsibility for providing safe, effective and efficient operation and/or maintenance of water and sewerage infrastructure to ensure customer service and regulatory expectations are achieved and to ensure appropriate escalation of potential business risks such as non-compliance, customer impacts, quality or service efficiencies to line management. It is clear from the position description that Mr Spencer’s role requires him to be in the field attending to tasks such as water and sewerage sampling, undertaking the maintenance and repair of water and sewerage assets and equipment and participating in the on-call roster and responding appropriately to emergency call-out situations. The physical requirements of the role are said to include exposure to extreme weather including hot, cold and other conditions.
[16] T1, T Documents 15–16.
Work related car expenses
Mr Spencer has claimed $6,600.00 in each of the two financial years in respect of kilometres travelled for work purposes in his own vehicles. He claimed equal use of each of his two vehicles, being $3,300.00 per vehicle based on 5,000 kilometres of use of each vehicle in each year.
In responding to questions asked of him as part of the audit, Mr Spencer advised:
Sometimes I use a work provided vehicle such as a truck, sometimes I travel with a colleague, sometimes I use my own vehicle. I am generally paid for my time, sometimes I will perform inspection and repair work outside of work hours without requesting payment.[17]
[17] T24, T Documents,188–9.
The deduction for each year was calculated using the cents per kilometre method which is one of two methods available pursuant to div 28 of the ITAA. Section 28.25 of the ITAA says that the number of business kilometres can be calculated by making a “reasonable estimate”.
Mr Spencer did not maintain contemporaneous records of his business kilometres. During the audit Mr Spencer estimated that he travelled 250 kilometres per week for work purposes in the two relevant financial years.[18] No calculation to support the estimate was provided. Mr Spencer also advised that he travelled an average of 50 kilometres per day in his motor vehicle.[19] Again no basis for the estimate was provided.
[18] T9, T Documents, 57.
[19] T11, T Documents, 122.
Mr Spencer has since provided estimates based on extrapolations from his work diaries for February 2017 and March 2018. The estimates exceeded 10,000 business kilometres in each of the relevant financial years.[20]
[20] Response from the Applicant to the Commissioner’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, 31 May 2020.
TasWater has provided written responses to both Mr Spencer and the Commissioner’s representatives in respect of Mr Spencer’s use of his own vehicles for work purposes. TasWater advised that:
(a)Mr Spencer is required to drive light commercial and specialist vehicles on a daily basis to meet the operational requirements of the business.[21]
(b)Mr Spencer can use a personal vehicle if approved and where a TasWater vehicle is not available and the use of a rental vehicle is not reasonable or economical.[22]
(c)TasWater does not have any record of Mr Spencer being given formal approval to use his own vehicle but a verbal approval may have been given.[23]
(d)TasWater could not confirm whether Mr Spencer had been given verbal approval to use personal vehicles as the relevant managers no longer work for TasWater.[24]
(e)Mr Spencer has not been reimbursed by TasWater for any private vehicle use.[25]
(f)Mr Spencer was not required to undertake any voluntary work outside of his rostered and on-call hours, such as inspecting work sites.[26]
[21] Letter from TasWater to the Commissioner’s legal representative,18 August 2020.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Letter from TasWater to Mr Anderson,5 November 2020.
[24] Letter from TasWater to the Commissioner’s legal representative,14 December 2020.
[25] Letter from TasWater to the Commissioner’s legal representative, 18 August 2020.
[26] Ibid.
TasWater’s vehicle policies and code of conduct are also in evidence.[27] They confirm that TasWater operates a vehicle fleet which is available to authorised employees for travel associated with TasWater operations. The policy in respect of the use of private vehicles, which was approved on 7 August 2017, confirms that the use of private vehicles requires approval and is limited to circumstances where TasWater vehicles are not available and the use of rental vehicles or taxis are not reasonable or economical. The code of conduct requires employees to know and comply with TasWater’s policies and procedures.
[27] TasWater, Management Policy - Vehicle Policy (Version 1.0 June 2014).
In written submissions the Commissioner conceded that the evidence indicated that a verbal approval was in place for Mr Spencer to use his private vehicle and that Mr Spencer used his personal vehicles to travel to work. The Commissioner argues that Mr Spencer’s estimates of business kilometres are not reasonable. Alternatively, the Commissioner argues that Mr Spencer’s claim must be limited to business travel associated with call-outs.
The Commissioner’s first argument with regards to the reasonableness of Mr Spencer’s claim is that the estimates fail to have regard to the fact that travel by Mr Spencer to voluntarily visit work sites, outside of his on-call duties, is not travel 'in the course of' producing his assessable income.
The Tribunal accepts the Commissioner’s submission. In Ronpibon Tin NL & Tong Kah Compound NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 47 at 57 the High Court said:
it is both sufficient and necessary that the occasion of the loss or outgoing should be found in whatever is productive of the assessable income or, if none be produced, would be expected to produce assessable income.
Similarly, in Commissioner of Taxation v Payne (2001) 202 CLR 93 (Payne) at [11], the High Court dealt with section 8-1(1)(a) of the ITAA and posed the question “is the occasion of the outgoing found in whatever is productive of actual or expected income?”
Mr Spencer argues that the visits were carried out for health and safety reasons and that he has a duty of care to all stakeholders including the general public. Whilst Mr Spencer obviously considers these visits a necessary part of his employment, they are not visits which were incurred in gaining or producing assessable income and therefore they are not deductible. This is apparent from the correspondence from TasWater and from Mr Spencer’s job description which sets out details of the call-out roster but says nothing about a requirement for ad hoc site visits outside of hours.
Secondly, the Commissioner argues that the estimates do not have regard to different rates of usage for the two vehicles, based upon Mr Spencer's work diaries. This is said to be relevant because s 28–25 limits a claim to 5,000 kilometres per vehicle. However, the Tribunal does not understand Mr Spencer to be making any such claim. Since the audit took place, he has provided estimates of his business kilometres that exceed 5,000 kilometres per vehicle per financial year, but the Tribunal understands the claims to have remained limited to $6,600.00 in each financial year.
Thirdly, the Commissioner argues that Mr Spencer’s failure to make use of his employer’s policy of allowing reimbursement of private vehicle costs undermines the allegation that the usage is of a kind necessarily incurred in earning Mr Spencer's assessable income. The Tribunal does not accept that submission. Just because there is potentially an alternative means of reimbursement open to Mr Spencer does not impact whether a deduction under the ITAA is allowable.
That leaves the question of whether Mr Spencer has made a reasonable estimate of the business kilometres associated with call-outs. The Commissioner has, to some extent, conceded the point. In written submissions the Commissioner has set out the following estimates based on the information said to be contained within Mr Spencer’s diaries:
(a)in February 2017, 85km in the Nissan vehicle and 60km in the Subaru vehicle, which may be extrapolated based upon a 48-week working year as follows (noting that Mr Spencer took one week's leave in February 2017):
Nissan:   Subaru:
85 / 3 = 28.33km/wk   60 / 3 = 20km/wk
28.33 x 48 = 1,360km/year                20 x 48 = 960km/year
1,360 x 0.66 = $897.00   960 x 0.66 = $633.00
Total for FY2017 = $1,530.00
(b)in March 2018, 140km in the Nissan vehicle and 230km in the Subaru vehicle, which may be extrapolated based upon a 49-week working year as follows:
Nissan:   Subaru:
140 / 4.42 = 31.67km/wk                   230 / 4.42 = 52.04km/wk
31.67 x 49 = 1,552km/year                52.04 x 49 = 2,549km/year
1,552 x 0.66 = $1,024.00                   2,549 x 0.66 = $1,682.00
Total for FY2018 = $2,706.00

The Commissioner says that this is the highest possible “watermark” on the evidence. Mr Spencer has not made any submission in respect of the calculations. The Tribunal has reviewed the summary of call-outs said to be recorded in Mr Spencer’s diaries and reproduced in an email to the Commissioner’s legal representative on 12 July 2020. The Tribunal is satisfied that the calculations appropriately extrapolate the business kilometres recorded by Mr Spencer and that they constitute a reasonable estimate of the business kilometres associated with call-outs in the relevant financial years.
It follows that Mr Spencer should be allowed deductions of $1,530.00 for business kilometres in the financial year ending on 30 June 2017 and $2,706.00 for business kilometres in the financial year ending on 30 June 2018.
Work related clothing expenses
The only disputed claim remaining in respect of work-related clothing expenses is a claim for $20.00 in respect of a pair of bamboo socks. The invoice for the purchase describes the socks as “work socks bamboo black”.[28]
[28] T9, T Documents, 61.
Mr Spencer says that whilst he only claimed for one pair of bamboo socks, he in fact purchased multiple pairs which he wears over the top of conventional socks when working in cold weather. He argues that the socks are protective clothing.
The Commissioner concedes that Mr Spencer is required to work in cold conditions as part of his employment but says that socks are a conventional clothing item in the nature of a private expense rather than protective clothing.
It is well accepted that protective clothing is an exception to the general rule that clothing is a private expense. The Commissioner allowed claims for gloves and a beanie on that basis. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Spencer has proved the assessment is excessive or incorrect on the basis that the bamboo socks were protective clothing. There is no evidence before the Tribunal establishing that the socks purchased by Mr Spencer were protective in nature. There is nothing on the invoice to suggest that, and in fact Mr Spencer has said that he wore them along with another pair of socks for warmth. That suggests that they were not protective in nature in their own right.
Home internet expenses
Mr Spencer has claimed $179.97 in home internet expenses for the financial year ending on 30 June 2017, being 100% of his home internet charges between 9 April 2017 and 9 June 2017.[29] He has claimed the sum of $730.06 for the subsequent financial year. The amount of $730.06 appears to be the total charges for Mr Spencer’s internet service in that year.
[29] Email from Mr Anderson to the Commissioner’s legal representative, 13 March 2020.
The Commissioner has allowed a deduction of $50.00 for each year.
There are no contemporaneous records of Mr Spencer’s internet usage during the relevant periods. He has provided a record of his family’s home internet usage in the period 9 June 2020 to 8 July 2020[30] which shows that during that time it was not used exclusively by Mr Spencer for work purposes. There are various websites listed which Mr Spencer says he accessed, and the Tribunal accepts that he may have accessed some for work purposes (for example reece.com.au and tradelink.com.au) however Mr Spencer has not provided any explanation of his internet usage. Some appear to be unrelated to his employment (for example Facebook). In an email sent to the Applicant’s legal representative and the Tribunal on 22 November 2020, Mr Spencer’s representative, Mr Anderson, stated that 1,232 out of 2,649 minutes of use were directly related to work but no further explanation was provided.
[30] Email from Mr Anderson to the Commissioner’s legal representative, 12 July 2020.
TasWater has informed the Commissioner that Mr Spencer had a mobile telephone issued to him on or before 21 May 2014 and that it could be used to access the internet.[31] He was also issued with a TasWater tablet device in April 2017 which could be used for internet access.[32]
[31] Letter from TasWater to Mr Anderson, 5 November 2020.
[32] Ibid.
In a letter dated 26 April 2019 a representative of TasWater confirmed Mr Spencer had participated in a training program from October 2017 to June 2018 at TasWater’s direction and as part of that program he was required to complete some written assessments outside of business hours and this would have required personal internet and computer usage. No mention was made of Mr Spencer’s work provided tablet and whether it could have been used to complete the assessments.
TasWater advised Mr Spencer’s representative on 5 November 2020[33] that Mr Spencer was not directed or required to use his home internet in his own time for work-related purposes, although he may have needed to use it if he had difficulties with his tablet.
[33] Ibid.
The Tribunal accepts that, even though Mr Spencer had two internet enabled devices provided to him by his employer, there may well have been times when he chose to use those devices connected to his own wifi or use his own home computer. This has essentially been conceded by the Commissioner because $50.00 of work-related internet usage has been allowed in each financial year. The issue is whether Mr Spencer has proven that the assessment is excessive or otherwise incorrect because his work-related internet usage exceeded $50.00 in either or both of the financial years.
Assessing the amount of work-related internet usage by Mr Spencer is extremely difficult in the absence of reliable contemporaneous records. The Tribunal is not assisted by the internet usage Mr Spencer recorded in June and July 2020 given it is well outside the periods in dispute, there is no evidence that it is in anyway an accurate approximation of Mr Spencer’s use during the relevant periods, and Mr Spencer has not provided sufficient information for the Tribunal to determine which parts of Mr Spencer’s usage related to his employment and which did not.
It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Spencer has demonstrated that the assessments are excessive or otherwise incorrect with regards to his home internet expenses.
Mobile telephone expenses
Mr Spencer has claimed $289.00 of personal mobile telephone expenses for the financial year ending on 30 June 2017 and $618.00 for the financial year ending on 30 June 2018. The expenses Mr Spencer has claimed include the purchase of a Samsung Galaxy handset on 6 December 2017.[34]
[34] T9, T Documents, 91.
Mr Spencer concedes that he is provided with a mobile telephone by TasWater but says that despite this he frequently uses his own mobile telephone for work purposes. He has not provided any contemporaneous records of work-related use but has provided a list, including what he says are a sample of work-related calls, during a two-week period from 24 October 2019.[35] Mr Spencer has also provided a list of websites which he says he accessed on his mobile telephone whilst at work on 25 June 2020.[36]
[35] T1, T Documents, 22.
[36] Email from Mr Anderson to the Applicant’s legal representative, 12 July 2020.
As part of the audit process, on 28 April 2019 Mr Spencer advised a representative of the Commissioner that he made no personal use of the mobile telephone and used it only for work purposes. He said he used it to access the internet when his iPad and desktop computer were not available because he was out in the field. He made no mention of the mobile telephone provided to him by TasWater and at that stage the only iPad he had mentioned was one he had purchased himself and for which the Commissioner allowed deductions for depreciation.
During the audit process a representative of the Commissioner provided Mr Spencer with a number of information brochures on various types of deductions. One of the information brochures covered the topic of working from home and advised that there are two methods to calculate phone and internet expenses. The first is to claim up to $50.00 without records. The second is to calculate actual expenses.[37] The Commissioner has already allowed a deduction of $50.00 in each relevant financial year for internet usage in the absence of records.
[37] T10, T Documents 119.
There is simply insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to be satisfied that Mr Spencer is entitled to the deductions he has claimed, particularly as Mr Spencer did not keep contemporaneous records of usage. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that Mr Spencer has satisfied the onus on him with regards to his mobile telephone expenses.
CONCLUSION
In summary the Tribunal will set aside the Commissioner’s objection decision of 22 October 2019 and substitute a decision allowing Mr Spencer’s objection but only in respect of his claims for the beanie, gloves, $1,530.00 for business kilometres in the financial year ending on 30 June 2017 and $2,706.00 for business kilometres in the financial year ending on 30 June 2018.

I certify that the preceding 58 (fifty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of L RIEPER, Member.

........................[sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated: 3 May 2021

Date(s) of hearing:
Determined without a hearing in accordance with s 34J of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Peter Anderson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Shanna Godden

[2021] AATA 1106

3 May 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Tax Law

Statutory Interpretation

Evidence

Legal Concepts

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Appeal

Date(s) of hearing:	Determined without a hearing in accordance with s 34J of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Peter Anderson
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Shanna Godden