Private ruling: accommodation expenses
Published: September 2011
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2011
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2010

Ruling: Q1: Are you entitled to a deduction for your accommodation expenses? | A1: No.


Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1.

Reasons for decision: Summary: Section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) allows a deduction for all losses and outgoings to the extent to which they are incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or are necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income except where the outgoings are of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt income, or a provision of the ITAA 1997 prevents it. A number of significant court decisions have determined that for an expense to be an allowable deduction: · it must have the essential character of an outgoing incurred in gaining assessable income or, in other words, of an income-producing expense ( Lunney v. FC of T ; (1958) 100 CLR 478 ( Lunney's case )), · there must be a nexus between the outgoing and the assessable income so that the outgoing is incidental and relevant to the gaining of assessable income ( Ronpibon Tin NL v. FC of T , (1949) 78 CLR 47), and · it is necessary to determine the connection between the particular outgoing and the operations or activities by which the taxpayer most directly gains or produces his or her assessable income ( Charles Moore Co (WA) Pty Ltd v. FC of T , (1956) 95 CLR 344; FC of T v. Hatchett , 71 ATC 4184). Accommodation expenses Expenditure on the daily necessities of life (for example, accommodation, food and drink) is generally not deductible as it is not incurred in gaining or producing assessable income and is also considered to be private or domestic in nature. Exceptions to this are where you are undertaking work related travel and are required to stay away overnight. However, no deduction is allowable if a taxpayer is merely maintaining accommodation close to their usual work location for convenience. Income Tax Ruling IT 2566 states that an employee who is travelling to commence employment duties at a new work location is not travelling on duty. The employment duties do not commence until the employee reports to work at the new location. Income Tax Ruling IT 2614 states that removal and relocation expenses to take up an appointment with a new or existing employer are not allowable deductions, even if an allowance or reimbursement is received. This is so whether the transfer is voluntary or at the employer's request. When relocating to a new work site, a taxpayer is not travelling on their work, but is travelling to their work. This view is supported in the case of Fullerton v FC of T , 91 ATC 4983; (1991) 22 ATR 757, where as a result of a reorganisation the taxpayer's position ceased to exist. In order to avoid retrenchment, he had no choice but to accept a transfer to a different location. The employer reimbursed a portion of the relocation expenses and the taxpayer claimed the remainder as a tax deduction. It was held that the expenditure on the taxpayer's domestic or family arrangements was not deductible, even though the expenditure had a causal connection with the earning of income. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Toms 20 ATR 466; 89 ATC 4373 ( Toms case ), the Federal Court held that expenses incurred in relation to accommodation near the work place, while maintaining a family residence in another location, were not an allowable deduction as they were considered to be private expenses. The Federal Court disallowed the forest workers deduction for the cost of maintaining a caravan and other living expenses. The taxpayer's family home in Grafton was some 108 kilometres from the base camp so he lived in the caravan during the week and returned to the family home on weekends. The caravan was rendered necessary as much by the taxpayer's choice of the place of his residence in Grafton as by his employment in the State forest, and its purpose was to enable him to retain his residence in Grafton although he was employed in the State forest. Had he lived at a town closer to the forest, there is no question the caravan would have been unnecessary. Although your situation is different to Toms case, the principles are relevant. In your case, you incur accommodation expenses near each work place. We acknowledge that you do not maintain a residence in Australia and your employer sends you to various sites, however, your accommodation expenses are incurred to put you in a place where you are closer to your place of employment. Although your place of employment changes during the year, each place is regarded as your normal place of work. The accommodation expenses incurred were not related to the actual performance of your duties. They are more a convenience and a prerequisite to the earning of assessable income and are not expenses incurred in the course of gaining or producing that income. Furthermore, the essential character of the expense is of a private or domestic nature. Accordingly, you are not entitled to a deduction for the accommodation expenses under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet. | Relevant facts: You are an employee and work wherever your employer sends you. | You generally work in the one location for three weeks or more. | You pay for your own accommodation and meals whilst you are out on the road. You generally stay in caravan parks, cabins or motels. | When not working, you stay with relations. | You have kept all your accommodation receipts.