The Australian Tax Office (ATO) is focusing on validating work-related expenses this year.
Last year, the ATO conducted around 450,000 reviews and audits of individual taxpayers leading to adjustments of $1.1 billion, including omitted income or over-claimed deductions.
The ATO has recently released five case studies of ordinary tax payers who were caught out with incorrect tax deductions.
This is why we ask certain questions when preparing your tax returns. In this series of Case Studies, the tax-payers claims were disallowed and some received large fines.
CASE STUDY ONE
“A railway guard claimed $3700 in work-related car expenses for travel between his home and workplace. He indicated that this expense related to carrying bulky tools — including large instruction manuals and safety equipment. The employer advised the equipment could be securely stored on their premises. The taxpayer’s car expense claims were disallowed because the equipment could be stored at work and carrying them was his personal choice, not a requirement of his employer.”
CASE STUDY TWO
“A wine expert, working at a high end restaurant, took annual leave and went to Europe for a holiday. He claimed thousands of dollars in airfares, car expenses, accommodation, and various tour expenses, based on the fact that he’d visited some wineries. He also claimed over $9000 for cases of wine. All his deductions were disallowed when the employer confirmed the claims were private in nature and not related to earning his income.”
CASE STUDY THREE
“A medical professional made a claim for attending a conference in America and provided an invoice for the expense. When we checked, we found that the taxpayer was still in Australia at the time of the conference. The claims were disallowed and the taxpayer received a substantial penalty.”
CASE STUDY FOUR
“A taxpayer claimed deductions for car expenses using the logbook method. We found they had recorded kilometres in their log book on days where there was no record of the car travelling on the toll roads, and further inquiries identified that the taxpayer was out of the country. Their claims were disallowed.”
CASE STUDY FIVE
“A taxpayer claimed self-education expenses for the cost of leasing a residential property, which was not his main residence. The taxpayer claimed he had to incur the expense of renting the property as he ‘required peace and quiet for uninterrupted study which he could not have in his own home’. This was not deductible.
“In addition to the rental expenses, the cost of a storage facility was claimed where ‘the taxpayer needed to store his books and study materials’. They claimed they needed this because of the huge amount of books and study material associated with his course and had no space in his private or rented residence where these could be housed. This was not deductible.
“The cost of renting the property was around $57,000, with additional expense of $7500 for the storage facility. The actual cost of the study program he attended that year was only $1200.”
If you have any questions about what you are or aren’t entitled to claim please do not hesitate to contact the team at MJJ Accounting and business solutions.