|
|
此文章由 simonwang 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 simonwang 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
Mel.Cao 发表于 2015-12-10 20:22 
现在在外面发生的费用好像都要保留证据了，以前不要的，ATO认为是合理的就不需要提供证据。
但是我还是将 ...
下面这个案例可能有帮助，和你的情况不尽相似，但是court reasoning 是适用的：
Hancox v FCT - court confirms that allowance was a LAFHA and therefore no deductions claimable against it and 50% penalties unappealable。
The Federal Court has held that the AAT in AAT Case [2012] AATA 836, Hancox and FCT had not erred in finding that a taxpayer, who was employed by a mining company at Port Hedland on a fly-in fly-out basis, was not in receipt of a travel allowance of some $20,000 as he claimed, but instead was in receipt of a LAFHA pursuant to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. As a result, the Court agreed with the AAT's finding that the taxpayer was not entitled to a deduction of some $36,000 for accommodation and food etc that he claimed against the travel allowance. [This is because ‘fringe benefits’ are non-assessable, non-exempt income.]
In doing so, the Court found that the expenditure in relation to accommodation, food and travel were not incurred in the course of gaining or producing assessable income in terms of s 8-1(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997. It also found that the "occasion" of the expenditure was not the taxpayer's income earning activities as a leading hand maintenance electrician but rather was his decision not to live in Port Hedland, but to continue to live in South Australia and instead travel into Port Hedland on a "fly-in fly-out basis".
Finally, in relation to the AAT's decision to uphold the 50% shortfall penalties imposed by the Commissioner for "recklessness", the Court stated that it did not think that the taxpayer's appeal in relation to the AAT's characterisation of the conduct as "reckless" was an appellable question of law.
(Hancox v FCT [2013] FCA 735） |
|
[面子产品大交流]之KUN版 感兴趣眼膜的银快进来 (2007-3-12) KUN 
楼主:cwb1000
发表于 2015-12-10 16:34
