Watts and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)
[2017] AATA 2030
•31 October 2017
Watts and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2017] AATA 2030 (31 October 2017)
Division: TAXATION & COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2016/0621; 2016/0622
Re:Moksha Watts
APPLICANT
AndCommissioner of Taxation
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
Date:31 October 2017
Place:Sydney
The Objection Decision under review is affirmed.
...................................[sgd]...................................
Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
TAXATION AND REVENUE – income tax – deductions – employee – work-related clothing expenses – work-related travel expenses – self-education expenses – other work-related expenses – gifts or donations – interest deductions – capital works – other rental deductions – administrative penalty – whether failure to take reasonable care – objection decision is affirmed
LEGISLATION
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) Divisions 43, 900, ss 8-1, 25-10, 43-25(1), 43-30, 900-35, 900-115
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s s 14ZZK
CASES
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cooper (1991) 29 FCR 177
Mansfield v Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 31 ATR 367
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Taxation Ruling 95/25 Income tax: deductions under section 8-1
Taxation Ruling 97/23 Income tax: deductions for repairs
Taxation Ruling 98/9 Income tax: deductibility of self-education expensesTaxation Ruling 2004/6 Income tax: substantiation exception for reasonable travel and overtime meal allowance expenses
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
31 October 2017
BACKGROUND
The Applicant has requested a review of the Respondent's Objection Decision dated 18 January 2016 (‘the Objection Decision’) pertaining to the 30 June 2013 (‘FY2013’) and 30 June 2014 (‘FY2014’) financial years.
The Objection Decision is based on the information which was before the Respondent at the time the Objection decision was made. The Respondent states that he was not a party to any of the transactions that were the subject of the Objection Decision and his knowledge of the facts arises from documents and information furnished to him by the Applicant and/or her taxation agent.
The Respondent states that he relies upon s 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), which imposes a burden on the Applicant to prove that the assessment the subject of this proceeding is excessive, and what the assessment should have been.
FACTS
The Applicant was employed by the Department of Finance from 24 March 2014.
On 22 October 2013, the Applicant, through her taxation agent, lodged an income tax return for FY2013, which state that she had received gross payments of $201,907 and claimed the following deductions which are the subject of this hearing:
Deduction Type
Amount
Work related travel expenses
$18,644
Work related clothing expenses
$1,189
Work related self- education expenses
$1,810
Other work related expenses
$4,698
Gifts or donations
$1,215
Interest deductions
$49,299
Capital works
$2,809
Other rental deductions
$36,384
On 4 November 2013, a Notice of Assessment was issued for FY2013.
On 15 July 2014, the Applicant, through her taxation agent, lodged an income tax return for FY2014, which stated that she had received gross payments of $152,768 and claimed the following deductions that are the subject of this proceeding:
Deduction Type
Amount
Work related travel expenses
$8,988
Work related clothing expenses
$1,950
Work related self- education expenses
$1,221
Other work related expenses
$9,599
Gifts or donations
$1,595
Interest deductions
$58,315
Capital works
$6,391
Other rental deductions
$52,522
On 25 July 2014, a Notice of Assessment was issued for FY2014.
On 13 October 2014, the Applicant was notified that her claimed work related expenses, gifts and donations, and rental income and expenses relating to her income tax returns for FY2013 and FY2014 would be audited.
On 10 November 2014, the Applicant, through her taxation agent, provided information regarding her rental properties at:
(a)5 Westbourne Street, Drummoyne, NSW; and
(b)116/1A Tusculum Street, Potts Point, NSW,
in relation to which deductions were claimed in both FY2013 and FY2014.
On 11 November 2014, the Applicant, through her taxation agent, provided documents which she alleged substantiated the work-related expenses she had claimed in FY2013 and FY2014.
In relation to her work-related travel expenses, the Applicant stated that her travel was booked and paid for by her employer, and that she was paid a travel allowance for accommodation, food and incidentals. However, the Applicant stated that "this allowance not always (sic) at par with the Commissioner's Reasonable Rates. The gap between the actual allowance received and the Commissioner's reasonable rates is claimed under travel expenses".
The Applicant provided information as to how her work-related expenses were calculated. She provided the following in relation to calculations for FY2013:
Expense
Amount
Comment
Travel Expenses
$15,789
$2,855
Travel allowance “gap”
Other expenses
Uniform Expenses
$1,189
Work suits/shoes - $559, Dry cleaning and laundry - $630
Self-Education Expenses
$1,810
Fees (French courses) - $575; Books - $188; and Computer and other expenses - $1,047
Other expenses
$4,698
Donations
$1,215
In relation to FY2014, the Applicant provided the following information to clarify her work-related expenses:
Expense
Amount
Comment
Travel Expenses
$5,933
$3,055
Travel allowance “gap”
Hospitality and other expenses
Uniform Expenses
$1,950
Cleaning - $1,200, Dry cleaning - $150, Laundry - $600
Self-Education Expenses
$1,221
Fees (French courses) - $575; Books - $80; and Computer and other expenses - $566
Other expenses
$9,599
Donations
$1,595
On 18 December 2014, the Respondent’s audit determined that the following amounts were claimable in respect of the Applicant’s work-related expenses for FY2013 and FY2014:
Deduction Type
Claim – FY2013
Audit – FY2013
Claim – FY2014
Audit – FY2014
Work-related travel expenses
$18,664
$0
$8,988
$0
Work-related clothing expenses
$1,189
$0
$1,950
$0
Work-related self- education expenses
$1,810
$0
$1,221
$0
Other work-related expenses
$4,698
$732
$9,599
$0
Gifts or donations
$1,215
$680
$1,595
$320
Interest deductions
$49,299
$32,410
$58,315
$42,318
Capital works
$2,809
$2,099
$6,391
$4,243
Other rental deductions
$36,384
$28,187
$52,522
$32,918
The Respondent also imposed an administrative penalty of 50% of the Applicant's short-fall amount, for both FY2013 and FY2014.
On 14 January 2015, the Respondent issued Notices of Amended Assessment for FY2013 and FY2014.
On 2 February 2015, the Applicant, through her taxation agent, lodged objections to the Notices of Amended Assessment and provided information to support her objections.
On 2 April 2015, the Respondent requested further explanation and documents in relation to the Applicant's work-related expense claims. On the same day, and subsequently on 2 November 2015, the Applicant’s taxation agent submitted further information and documents explaining the Applicant’s expenses
The Applicant particularly stated that:
her employment required travel to Canberra and other Australian cities and overseas. She stated that most of her travel expenses were reimbursed, "in most cases", at a rate which was lower than the Commissioner's Reasonable Rates. She stated that the travel expense claim was "worked on the basis of the gap between the two rates". New spread sheets detailing the Applicant's claim for travel expenses for FY2013 and FY2014 were provided.
due to the nature of the Applicant's work, which she described as involving parliamentary duties, meeting with Ministers, executives and dignitaries - she "was required to wear formal clothes of high class. She would not and did not wear those clothes commonly".
her work responsibilities required her to communicate and meet with foreign dignitaries, most of whom were French-speaking. Her taxation agent claimed that "learning French did develop a skill essential to the work Moksha did and also have provided a strong opportunity to progression to higher level. Had the Labour (sic) party won, Moksha would have been in Prime Minister's office at a higher level at much higher remuneration package".
On 18 January 2016, the Respondent made the following Objection Decision:
FY2013
Deduction Type
Claim
Audit
Objection
Work related travel expenses
$18,664
$0
$76
Work related clothing expenses
$1,189
$0
$0
Work related self-education expenses
$1,810
$0
$0
Other work related expenses
$4,698
$732
$1,360
Gifts or donations
$1,215
$680
$680
Interest deductions
$49,299
$32,410
$49,299
Capital works
$2,809
$2,099
$2,809
Other rental deductions
$36,384
$28,187
$31,204
FY2014
Deduction Type
Claim
Audit
Objection
Work related travel expenses
$8,988
$0
$376
Work related clothing expenses
$1,950
$0
$0
Work related self-education expenses
$1,221
$0
$0
Other work related expenses
$9,599
$0
$1,197
Gifts or donations
$1,595
$320
$320
Interest deductions
$58,315
$42,318
$58,315
Capital works
$6,391
$4,243
$5,391
Other rental deductions
$52,522
$32,918
$32,580
The Applicant's objection to the imposition of an administrative penalty was unsuccessful, meaning that the Applicant was required to pay the penalty.
ISSUES
The following issues apply in relation to this application for review:
·Whether the Applicant is entitled to a deduction for work-related travel expenses in the amount of $18,644 and $8,988 for FY2013 and FY2014 years, respectively;
·Whether the Applicant is entitled to deduct expenses for work-related clothing and laundry expenses in the amount of $1,189 and $1,950 for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively;
·Whether the Applicant is entitled to deduct work-related self-education expenses in the amount of $1,810 and $1,221 for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively;
·Whether the Applicant is entitled to a deduction of $6,391 for capital works for FY2014;
·Whether the Applicant is entitled to a deduction of 36,384 and $52,522 for rental expenses for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively;
·Whether the Applicant is liable to pay an administrative penalty pursuant to section 284-75 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 at the rate of 50% of the shortfall amount for FY2013 and FY2014; and
·Whether part or all of those penalties should be remitted.
LEGISLATION
Claims for Work-Related expenses
The legislation relevant to work-related expenses is set out under s 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (‘ITAA’), which provides for deductions for expenses incurred in the course of gaining or producing assessable income.
Division 900 of the ITAA sets out the substantiation rules for claiming work-related expenses.
Section 900-35 of the ITAA provides that written evidence of work-related expenses is not required if the total expenses to be deducted do not exceed $300. If the claimed work-related expenses exceed $300, then the taxpayer must be able to substantiate these expenses, and the substantiating evidence must be retained for five years.
Section 900-115 of the ITAA provides that in order to substantiate a work-related expense, a document must be obtained from the supplier of the goods or services, containing the following information:
·the name or business name of the supplier;
·the amount of the expense, expressed in the currency in which it was incurred;
·the nature of the goods or services;
·the day the expense was incurred; and
·the day the document was produced.
There are two exceptions to the requirements in section 900-115:
·If the document does not provide the date on which the expense was incurred, a bank statement or other confirmatory evidence can be used to substantiate when the expense was incurred.[1]
·If the document does not state the nature of the goods and services, it is permissible for the taxpayer to write this on the document before the tax return is lodged.[2]
[1] subsection 900-115(3)(a) ITAA
[2] subsection 900-115(3)(b) ITAA
The Commissioner has the discretion to grant relief from substantiation in certain circumstances,[3] but only if the nature and quality of the evidence substantiating the expense satisfies the Commissioner that the expense was properly incurred and the taxpayer is entitled to deduct the amount claimed.
[3] section 900-195 ITAA
Claims for self-education expenses
Taxation Ruling TR 98/9 Income tax: deductibility of self-education expenses sets out the Commissioner’s ruling on the deductibility of self-education expenses.
Pursuant to TR 98/9, self-education expenses will comply with the requirements in s 8-1 of the ITAA if:
·the taxpayer’s income-earning activities are based on specific knowledge or exercising a certain skill, and self-education is for the purposes of maintaining or enhancing that knowledge or skill; or
·self-education objectively leads to, or is likely to lead to, an increase in the taxpayer’s earning capacity in the future.
Accordingly, provided there is a sufficient nexus between the self-education and the taxpayer’s income-earning activities, the taxpayer is entitled to claim a deduction for self-education expenses.
Notably, TR 98/9 provides that self-education expenses are not deductible if the expense is for the purposes of:
·enabling the taxpayer to get employment or obtain new employment; or
·facilitating a new income-earning activity (whether in a new business or in relation to the taxpayer’s current employer.
Claims for rental properties
Interest
Taxation Ruling TR 95/25 sets out the Commissioner’s ruling with respect to the deductibility of interest expenses. TR 95/25 provides that to determine whether interest expenses are deductible, the purpose of the borrowing and the use to which the borrowed funds are put must be examined.
If funds are borrowed for investment purposes from which income is to be derived, the interest incurred on the loan will be deductible.
Repairs
Section 25-10 of the ITAA permits a deduction for the cost of repairs to premises used for income-producing purposes, to the extent that the expense is not capital expenditure.
Taxation Ruling TR 97/23 explains the circumstances in which deductions for repairs are allowable. TR 97/23 states that what is a repair for the purposes of s 25-10 of the ITAA is a question of fact and degree in each case having regard to the appearance, form, state and extent of the work done to the property. The ruling further states that repairs mean the remedying or making good of defects in, damage to, or deterioration of, property. A repair merely replaces a part of something or corrects something that is already there and has become worn out or dilapidated.
TR 97/23 indicates that expenditure for repairs to property is of a capital nature where the:
·extent of the work carried out represents a renewal or reconstruction of the entirety, or
·works result in a greater efficiency of function in the property, therefore representing an ‘improvement’ rather than a ‘repair’, or
·work is an initial repair.
Repair costs are deductible where they are incurred, during the period the property is held, for income-producing purposes and are attributable either to damage that occurs during your income producing use of the property or to defects that emerge suddenly during that time.
TR 97/23 states that with a repair, the work restores the efficiency of function of the property without changing its character. An improvement, on the other hand, provides a greater efficiency of function in the property. It involves bringing a thing or structure into a more valuable or desirable state or condition than a mere repair would do.
It is acknowledged in TR 97/23 that to repair property improves to some extent the condition it was in immediately before repair. A minor and incidental degree of improvement, addition or alteration may be done to property and still be a repair. However, if the work amounts to a substantial improvement, addition or alteration, it is not a repair and is not deductible under s 25-10 of the ITAA.
Capital Works
Division 43 of the ITAA provides a deduction for capital works. Capital works includes buildings and structural improvements, and also extensions, alterations or improvements to buildings and structural improvements where a residential property is used for income producing purposes.
Subsection 43-25(1) of the ITAA provides that the rate of deduction for capital works which began after 26 February 1992 for a residential property is 2.5%. However, a deduction cannot be made prior to the completion of the capital works (s 43-30 of the ITAA).
CONSIDERATION
Work-Related Travel Expenses
The Applicant claimed deductions of $18,644 and $8,988 for work-related travel expenses for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively. These deductions, it would seem, comprise a "travel allowance gap" and, secondly, "hospitality'' and "various" other expenses.
The “Travel Allowance Gap"
The “travel allowance gap" deductions claimed by the Applicant amounted to $15,789 and $5,933 for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively. The Applicant had stated to the Respondent that she was paid a travel allowance to cover her accommodation, food and incidental expenses on work-related travel. That allowance was paid to her as a reimbursement, after the particular expense was incurred.
The travel allowance paid was at a lower rate than the rate prescribed under the "Commissioner's Reasonable Rates". The Applicant therefore claimed deductions based on the difference (‘the gap’) between the Commissioner's Reasonable Rate for FY2013 and FY2014 and the amount paid to her by way of reimbursement for a particular trip. The Respondent provided the following example in his Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions:
The Applicant was paid, by way of reimbursement (see Certificate of Acquitted Travel: T12-444), $1,040 for a 4 night stay in Canberra (4*$260/night), between 26 and 30 May 2013. At T8-345, the Applicant records that reimbursement (under the heading "Amount Paid"), records that the Commissioner's Reasonable Rate for a 4 night stay in Canberra at that time was $1580.2 (4*$395.05) (see TD 2012/17), and identifies the difference as $540.20. The Applicant thus claims a deduction for $540.20, being the difference between the travel allowance she actually received and the Commissioner's Reasonable Rates. The remainder of the travel allowance "gap" deduction claimed, for both FY2013 and FY2014, appear to be calculated in the same manner.
The Applicant has not identified any permitted basis upon which she is entitled to a deduction of the type described above. TR 2004/6, which relates to travel allowances and the Commissioner's Reasonable Rates, entitles a taxpayer, who is in receipt of a travel allowance, to deduct up to the maximum amounts stipulated in Commissioner's Reasonable Rates, but this is on the basis of travel expenses actually incurred. The Applicant’s taxation agent admitted during the hearing that the Applicant effectively claimed a deduction in respect of an expense that she never incurred, which is clearly not permissible under any taxation law.
The Applicant argued that her income tax return for 2012 included an expense which was calculated in an "exactly similar manner" and that this was “reviewed by the Respondent and allowed”. The Applicant has not submitted any evidence, and the Respondent has been unable to locate, any records which indicate that there was any review of the Applicant's income tax return for FY2012. At the hearing, it was clear that the Applicant’s taxation agent was under the misapprehension that because the claim made in FY2012 was “allowed” (meaning, in effect, that the income tax return for FY2012 was not audited), the Applicant’s claimed deductions for FY2013 and FY2014 must be allowed. This is a rather absurd interpretation of the tax regime and taxpayers’ obligations.
I find that the Applicant is not entitled to the travel expenses claimed, on the basis that the expenses were never actually incurred.
Other ("Various”) Travel Expenses
The Applicant has claimed work-related travel expenses of $2,855 and $3,055 for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively, arising from "various items" and "hospitality" expenses. The expenses appear to be set out in the spread sheet attached to Applicant's letters to the Respondent dated 4 November 2014 for the FY2013 and FY2014 years, and the "updated" spread sheet attached to Applicant's letters to the Respondent dated 2 April 2015 for the same years. It is notable that the individual expenses included in the original and updated spread sheets for each year are difficult to reconcile with each other, as is the overall expenditure identified on the spread sheet with the deduction actually claimed.
More importantly, the Applicant has not been able to identify any evidence substantiating each expense claimed, or establish the required nexus between each expense and her derivation of income, or why the expenses should not be considered private or domestic in nature (s 8-1 of ITAA). The Respondent noted, by way of example, a deduction claimed by the Applicant for expenses she incurred at Harrods in London and at various restaurants, but no substantiating evidence was provided to establish that these were work-related expenses and not private or domestic expenses.
On the material before me, I am not satisfied that the expenses relating to various items” and “hospitality” were work-related expenses and therefore, that the Applicant is entitled to the claimed deductions of $2,855 and $3,055.
Work-Related Clothing Expenses
The Applicant claims a deduction for clothing and laundry expenses of $1,189 and $1,950 for the FY2013 and FY2014, respectively.
The Applicant has not clearly identified the basis of this claim or the specific clothes actually purchased, other than observing that she was "required to wear formal clothes of high class" because of her work responsibilities (which, she says, included meeting with Ministers, corporate executives and attending to Parliamentary duties). She also sought to justify the claim on the basis that she did not wear the clothes for which she claimed a deduction, outside of work.
The Respondent note Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cooper (1991) 29 FCR 177 and Mansfield v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 31 ATR 367 as authority for the proposition that the fact that an employer "requires" certain expenditure by an employee does not, of itself, make the expenditure deductible.
In relation to clothing expenses, Hill J observed in Mansfield, at 375:
"The mere fact that a particular form of clothing is required to be used in an occupation or profession will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that expenditure on that form of clothing was deductible.
It can be said that generally expenditure on ordinary articles of apparel will not be deductible, notwithstanding that such expenditure is necessary to ensure a suitable appearance in a particular job of profession. An employed solicitor may be required to dress in an appropriate way by his or her employer, but that fact alone would not bring about the result that the expenditure was deductible".
Expenditure on conventional clothing is not a permissible deduction under s 8-1 of the ITAA. This is because there is an insufficient nexus between the expenditure on clothing and the income-earning activities of the taxpayer. The relevant factors in deciding whether an expense is allowable are the extent to which the clothing:
·is distinctive or unique to the nature of the employment;
·can be worn by members of the public; and
·is unsuitable for activities other than work.
There is no evidence that the Applicant’s clothing was distinctive or unique to her employment. It was conventional in nature, rather than specifically related to her employment (such as a uniform or other clothing identifying her employer, or clothing required to be worn for protection).
I find that the expenses claimed for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years related to conventional clothing and are private or domestic in nature, and therefore not deductible under s 8-1 of the ITAA.
Work Related Self-Education Expenses
The Applicant has claimed deductions for work related self-education expenses of $1,810 and $1,221 for FY2013 and FY2014, respectively. The Respondent noted that each deduction arose from a number of separate expenses, but in her Statement of Facts and Contentions, the Applicant only referred to and disputed the disallowance of her expenses relating to the French language courses.
The Applicant has claimed $575 for FY2013 and FY2014 for a French language course conducted by "Alliance Française”. She claimed that she studied French language so that she could communicate with international visitors, with whom she was required to communicate and engage with on behalf of her employer. The Applicant claims that her French language studies would have enabled her to move to a much higher remuneration package had the Labor party won the election in 2013.
It is conceivable that that the Applicant was required to communicate at high levels with visitors from different countries, and that a skill in French language was an important skill in her work-related duties. I accept, therefore, that French language studies could fall within the definition of maintaining or improving a skill required for work.
However, the Applicant has not produced any evidence to substantiate her self-education expenses. She has not provided written receipts for the study to substantiate the claim. On the evidence before me, I am not able to establish that the expense was actually incurred. Accordingly, pursuant to s 8-1 of the ITAA, I find that the Applicant is not entitled to claim the deductions.
Rental Property Deductions
The Applicant has claimed a number of deductions for expenses incurred in relation to two rental properties. However, the Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions does not dispute the Objection Decision in relation to FY2013, but in relation to FY2014, the Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions disputes the disallowance of deductions for capital works, body corporate fees and landlord insurance.
Capital Works
During the hearing, the Applicant’s representative indicated that the Applicant no longer disputed the Objection Decision for FY2014, which allowed an amount of $5,391 for capital works.
The Respondent made no further submissions in this regard, such that there is no further dispute in relation to the deductions for capital works.
Body Corporate Fees
The Applicant claims that she is entitled to a deduction of $9,081 for body corporate fees, but has not identified which property this alleged expense relates to, how the deduction was determined or calculated, or provided any other documentation or evidence substantiating the expense.
On the basis that the Applicant has not provided any evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim, the deduction should not be allowed.
Landlord Insurance
The Applicant contends that she is entitled to a deduction of $357 for "Landlord Insurance", but has not identified the property to which this alleged expense relates or provided any documentation or evidence substantiating the expense.
The Applicant submitted a document titled "NAB Residential Investor Insurance Premium", which referred to a premium of $357.24. It appears that this is the "Landlord Insurance" expense claimed, but the Policy is addressed to Mr Watts and lists the "Insured' as "Gambhir Watts". I am not satisfied, therefore, that this expense was actually incurred by the Applicant, and therefore decide that the deduction should not be allowed.
Administrative Penalties
The Applicant contends that the administrative penalties imposed on her should be withdrawn or remitted in full. She argues that the travel expenses "were claimed on the strength of review by the Respondent of similar expenses in ... 2011-2012", even though there is no evidence of any “review” or audit the Applicant’s FY2012 income tax return.
The Applicant further claims that "there has been absolutely no reckless[ness] or lack of reasonable care" but has provided no information to satisfy me that any of the impugned deductions were claimed on a reasonable basis. I must also add that it was evident to me that Mr Gambhir Watts, who represented the Applicant at the hearing and identified himself as the Applicant’s taxation agent, was largely responsible for submitting deductions which were clearly not permissible under the law. Having stated during the hearing that he has been a tax agent for more than 15 years, I find Mr Watts’ conduct in claiming deductions which he either knew or ought to have known were impermissible both reckless and inexcusable.
I therefore agree with the Respondent that the Applicant and her taxation agent were reckless in preparing and lodging her FY2013 and FY2014 taxation returns. The onus was on the Applicant to establish a sufficient nexus between the claimed expenditure and the derivation of her income, and to retain adequate evidence to substantiate the expenses claimed. She did not do that. She did not take reasonable care in the preparation and lodgement of her income tax returns to determine that the deductions claimed were permissible under the law. I therefore find that the administrative penalties are well justified.
DECISION
On the basis of my consideration at paragraphs [45] and [74] above, the Objection Decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 75 (seventy- five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr T Nicoletti, Senior Member
..................................[sgd]..................................
Associate
Dated: 31 October 2017
Date of hearing: 28 November 2016 Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr G Watts, Taxation Guru Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondent: Ms E Collins SC and Mr N Swan Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms N McGregor, Commissioner of Taxation
1
2
0