Re: QR and photographers

["Roy Wilke" <3891@bit.net.au>]

WhaleOilBeefHooked <daproc@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
wCBp3.66$aD2.570419@news0.optus.net.au">news:wCBp3.66$aD2.570419@news0.optus.net.au...
> Roy Wilke <3891@bit.net.au> wrote in message
<37a6e2df@news.ausmail.com>...
>
> But what QR tell you may or may not be the legal situation. I had the tax
> office tell me I could not claim expenses when travelling to and from
> football - they refused the deductions. I appealed to the AAT and won - it
> (correctly) ruled that I was an itinerant employee (as far as football
> umpiring went) and I was entitled to claim the deduction. The ATO was
wrong
> in this case - it was making up the rules as it went along, which
government
> bodies are not entitled to do.

<sigh - what the hell, let's take this thread waay off-topic>

I used to work in the tax office. I think you misrepresented the situation
in that paragraph.  You claimed travel expenses, a clerk in the ATO looks at
the guidelines for travel expenses and judges that you've overclaimed. You
object, and another clerk who gets your objection to assessment on his desk
takes a look and judges on the guidelines that your objection is invalid.
Nothing out of the ordinary there.

(as an aside, I've seen someone claim travel and accommodation expenses as a
work deduction because he was driving his wife to work in a neighbouring
town - I've also seen someone try to claim that a brand-new Mazda RX-7 was
the shop ute for an aircraft engine repair firm)

You exercise your right to take the matter to the AAT, where all the facts
come out into the open and the decision is in your favour. That isn't
anything out of the ordinary, either. BTW, congratulations on the win.

However, the ATO is not a transport body, and is not a very good parallel to
a State Government semi-corporate entity like Queensland Railways.


> DaveP (JP)
>
> >
> >Roy (the by now thoroughly pissed-off) Wilke
> >
> >
>
>