Private ruling: Work related expenses
Published: February 2013
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2012
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2011

Ruling: Q1: Are you entitled to a deduction for the expenses incurred to install security cameras? | 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 except where the outgoings are of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt income. Taxation Ruling TR 95/13 deals with the assessability of allowances and reimbursements received by police officers and deductions for work-related expenses generally claimed by police officers. Although you are not employed in this profession, the information contained in this ruling is relevant to your circumstances. In paragraph 116, the ruling states that a deduction is not allowable for the cost of installing a security system at a police officer's residence, as it is both a capital and a private expense. In Frankcom v. FC of T 82 ATC 4599;(1982)13 ATR 636 a Magistrate claimed the cost of fitting security locks to windows and external lighting to the family home. These measures were in response to threats to burn down the family home and threats to his person. Kaye J of the Supreme Court of Victoria notes at 4607; 644 that the enduring benefit provided by these changes to the property rendered the additions capital in nature. However, he also noted that as they were for the protection of his home and family, the expenses were also of a private or domestic nature and thus were not allowable. In Case T20 86 ATC 211; 29 CTBR (NS) Case 23 , the Board noted that the expenditure on improved security measures (radio-controlled garage door, steel security screen doors and deadlocks) incurred by a Family Court judge was properly characterised as both capital and private in nature. While it was a 'once and for all' expense, its purpose was protecting the occupants of the premises - the judge's family. PM Roach (Member) also noted (at 213; 162) that the private character of the expense was retained even where part of the property was used for a substantial proportion of the income producing activities of the taxpayer. In your case you have installed security cameras at your home. The installation of the security cameras is a 'once and for all' expense and, as such, it is considered to be capital in nature. While we acknowledge that the security cameras were installed in an attempt to protect your work vehicle, they also serve to protect your house, its occupants and its contents and consequently the expenses are also considered to be private or domestic in nature. Therefore, the cost of installing security cameras at your home is not deductible 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 and circumstances | Your work vehicle was vandalised and robbed. All your tools and equipment including specific work related uniforms were taken. | Your vehicle was replaced but you were targeted again. | You installed security cameras at your house in an attempt to deter any thieves that may be targeting your equipment. | It is a condition of your employment that the vehicle is kept at your residence outside working hours.