Private ruling: Fringe benefits tax
Published: February 2013
Ruling period: Year ended 31 March 2014 | Year ended 31 March 2015 | Year ended 31 March 2016 | Year ended 31 March 2017
Date scheme commenced: 1 April 2013

Ruling: Q1: In relation to scenario A, w ill the breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee be a travel allowance? | A1: Yes. | Q2: If the answer to question 1 is no, will the allowance be a living-away-from-home allowance benefit under section 30 of the FBTAA? | A2: Not applicable. | Q3: In relation to scenario A, will the provision of accommodation to the employee be a residual benefit that is exempt under subsection 47(5) of the FBTAA? | A3: No. | Q4: If the answer to question 3 is no, can the taxable value of the fringe benefits arising from the provision of the accommodation to the employee be reduced under section 52 of the FBTAA? | A4: Yes. | Q5: If the answer to question 3 is no, and the employee provides the employer with a declaration under section 31F of the FBTAA, can the taxable value of his or her fringe benefits be reduced by the exempt accommodation component under subsection 31A(2) of the FBTAA? | A5: No. | Q6: If the answer to question 2 is yes, will the exempt food component for the 2013 FBT year be the food rates mentioned in Taxation Determination TD 2012/17 ($95.40 per day) less the statutory amount? | A6: Not applicable. | Q7: In relation to scenario A, if the total period that the employee is away is 22 days and the employee has taken a break of 2 days, w ill the breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee be a living-away-from home allowance under section 30 of the FBTAA? | A7: No. | Q8: In relation to scenario A, if the total period that the employee is away is 22 days and the employee has taken a break of 2 days, will the provision of accommodation to the employee be a residual benefit that is exempt under subsection 47(5) of the FBTAA? No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: This ruling is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme that is set out below. If your circumstances are materially different from these facts, this ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on your private ruling. Background You are the employer. You employ employees in various locations in Australia. These employees are trained by a team of dedicated trainers in location Z. It is more practical and economical for you provide training to a group of your employees at location Z rather than sending a trainer to each of the various locations in Australia where the employees are employed. Scenario A You employ an employee with particular skills. In Scenario A, the employee is located in one of the various locations around Australia. One of the employees' duties is to receive the requisite training to enable the employee to perform their duties of employment. You will send this employee to location Z in 201X to receive training with a group of other employees. It costs more for you to send a trainer to train each employee at the employee's job location. The employee will receive a number of weeks training in location Z. Due to the relatively long distances involved, it is not reasonable to expect the employee to travel from their home to location Z on a daily basis. The employee is entitled to return home every two weeks during the training under the Industrial Award. When the employee is required to attend training in location Z, he or she will stay in serviced apartments at location Z. The employer chooses the serviced apartments due to their proximity to the training venue and ability to house more than one employee per apartment at significant savings. While these apartments have kitchen facilities, breakfast and dinner allowances are paid to the employee in accordance with scheduled rates. All benefits are provided to the employee in respect of his or her employment. Refer to the heading 'Assumptions' for assumption(s) applicable to Scenario A. Scenario B You employ an employee with particular skills. In Scenario B, the employee is located in one of the various locations around Australia. You will organise aY week training course for these specialist employees in location Z in 201X. The outcome of the training will enable the employee to perform their duties of employment. You will send this employee to location Z in 201X to receive training with a group of other employees. It costs more for you to send a trainer to train each employee at the employee's job location. The employee will receive a number of weeks training in location Z. Due to the relatively long distances involved, it is not reasonable to expect the employee to travel from their home to location Z on a daily basis. The employee is entitled to return home every two weeks during the training under the Industrial Award. When the employee is required to attend training in location Z, he or she will stay in serviced apartments at location Z. The employer chooses the serviced apartments due to their proximity to the training venue and ability to house more than one employee per apartment at significant savings. While these apartments have kitchen facilities, breakfast and dinner allowances are paid to the employee in accordance with scheduled rates. All benefits are provided to the employee in respect of his or her employment. Refer to the heading 'Assumptions' for assumption(s) applicable to Scenario B. Scenario C - Remote vs. non-remote area You will provide housing benefits and residential fuel to employees who reside in the following areas: 1. location A 2. location B 3. location C 4. location D 5. location E and 6. location F. Location G, is an eligible urban area located within a certain distance kilometres from locations A, D and E respectively. In your application you have noted that the ATO has classified location F as non-remote and you have included the relevant references and maps. All benefits are provided to the employee in respect of his or her employment. Refer to the heading 'Assumptions' for assumption(s) applicable to Scenario C. Assumptions Assumptions for Scenario A and Scenario B 1. The employee maintains a home in Australia in which he or she usually resides. 2. The employee will provide a declaration under section 31F of the FBTAA to the employer. Assumption for Scenario C 1. Other than the determination of whether the benefits provided are in relation to remote area housing benefits, all the other required conditions under section 59(1) of the FBTAA are met.

Relevant legislative provisions: Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 30 | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 31F | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 31A | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 47(5) | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 52 | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 59(1) | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 136(1) | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 140(1A)

Reasons for decision: Summary: While these reasons are not part of the private ruling, we provide them to help you to understand how we reached our decision. All legislative references are to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA) unless otherwise noted. | Summary: As the employee will be travelling in the course of performing their job, the breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee will be a travel allowance. | Detailed Reasoning - Difference between a living-away-from-home allowance and a travelling allowance: Because they are subject to different taxation treatments, it is important to determine whether an allowance paid by the employer to the employee is a LAFHA or a travelling allowance. Living-away-from-home allowances are benefits under section 30 and may be taxable to the employer whereas travelling allowances form part of the employee's assessable income against which appropriate deductions may be allowed for the cost of meals, accommodation and incidental expenses incurred while the employee is travelling in the course of carrying out the duties of employment. Our publications, Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT 2030 and Fringe benefits tax: a guide for employers, discuss the distinction between a living-away-from-home allowance and a travelling allowance. The following table sets out some of the indicators of whether the allowance is a LAFHA or travelling allowance: | Detailed Reasoning - Travelling allowances: This is paid where an employee has taken up temporary residence away from their usual place of residence in order to carry out duties at a new, but temporary, workplace. This is paid because an employee is travelling in the course of performing their job. There is a change of job location in relation to paying the allowance. There is no change of job location in relation to paying the allowance. Where an employee is living-away-from-home, it is more common for that employee to be accompanied by their spouse and family. Where an employee is travelling, they are generally not accompanied by their spouse and family. They are paid for longer periods. They are paid for short periods. They change residence (temporarily) in relation to the payment of the allowance. They have no change of residence. The indicators above are guidelines only and no one indicator determines the nature of the allowance received. For example, a travelling allowance might be paid to a commercial traveller almost continuously, whereas another employee may receive a LAFHA for only a month or so. There may be circumstances when an employee is away from their home base for a brief period in which it may be difficult to determine whether the employee is living-away-from-home or travelling. As a practical general rule, where the period away does not exceed 21 days, the allowance will be treated as a travelling allowance rather than a LAFHA. Paragraph 40 of MT 2030 states that the nature of an allowance is not to be determined by reference solely to the period for which it is paid. It is not appropriate to simply apply the practical general rule that, where the period away does not exceed 21 days, the employee is living away from home. A closer examination of Scenario A reveals that it contains more of the indicators that support the conclusion that the allowance is a travelling allowance, not a LAFHA. The employee will be receiving the breakfast and dinner allowance because he or she: · will be travelling in the course of performing their job · will not be accompanied by their spouse and family · will be paid for a relatively short period · have no change of residence, and · there is no change to the employee's job location in relation to paying the allowance. The breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee will therefore be a travel allowance. | Summary: Not applicable. | Summary: As the employee will not be living away from home, the provision of accommodation to the employee cannot be a residual benefit that is exempt under subsection 47(5). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: To be an exempt benefit under subsection 47(5) requires amongst other things that the accommodation be provided solely by reason that the employee is required to live away from his or her normal residence in order to perform their employment duties. This requirement is not satisfied when an employee is travelling in the course of performing their job. | Summary: The taxable value of the residual fringe benefits arising from the provision of the accommodation to the employee can be reduced under section 52 because the employee would have been entitled to claim such an expense as an income tax deduction. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Under section 52 the taxable value of a residual fringe benefit may be reduced in accordance with the otherwise deductible rule. Applied to Scenario A, this means that you may reduce the taxable value of the residual fringe benefits arising from the provision of the accommodation by the amount the employee would have been entitled to claim as an income tax deduction if both of the following conditions are satisfied: · the residual benefit is not be provided as a fringe benefit, and · the employee pays for the accommodation. As the employee is travelling in the course of performing their job, he or she would have been entitled to claim as an income tax deduction the expenditure on accommodation. Consequently, you may reduce the taxable value of the residual fringe benefit to nil. | Summary: The taxable value of the employee's residual fringe benefits cannot be reduced by the exempt accommodation component under subsection 31A(2). This reduction only applies to LAFHA fringe benefits. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The reduction in taxable value in respect of the exempt accommodation component under subsection 31A(2) only applies to LAFHA fringe benefits. The benefit is a residual fringe benefit and its taxable value may be reduced under section 52. Refer to the reasons for decision relating to the answer to Issue 1 Question 4 above. | Summary: If the total period that the employee is away is 22 days and the employee has taken a break of 2 days, the breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee will not be a living-away-from home allowance benefit under section 30. It continues to be a travel allowance. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Refer to reasons for decision to Issue 1 Question 1 above. | Summary: The provision of accommodation to the employee will be a residual fringe benefit but not an exempt residual benefit under subsection 47(5). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: If the total period that the employee is away is 22 days and the employee has taken a break of 2 days, the provision of accommodation to the employee will be a residual fringe benefit under Division 12. It is not an exempt residual benefit under subsection 47(5). This subsection only applies where the employee is required to live away from his or her normal residence in order to perform their employment duties. In Scenario A the employee will be travelling in the course of performing their job and not living away from home. The taxable value of the residual fringe benefit is determined under sections 51. The otherwise deductible rule under section 52 may also apply to reduce the taxable value. Under section 52 the taxable value of a residual fringe benefit may be reduced in accordance with the otherwise deductible rule. Applied to Scenario A, this means that you may reduce the taxable value of the residual fringe benefits arising from the provision of the accommodation by the amount the employee would have been entitled to claim as an income tax deduction if both of the following conditions are satisfied: · the residual benefit is not be provided as a fringe benefit, and · the employee pays for the accommodation. As the employee is travelling in the course of performing their job, he or she would have been entitled to claim as an income tax deduction the expenditure on accommodation. Consequently, you may reduce the taxable value of the residual fringe benefit to nil. | Summary: As the employee will be travelling in the course of performing their job, the breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee will be a travel allowance. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The difference between a living-away-from-home allowance and a travelling allowance discussed in the detailed reasoning relating to Issue 1 Question 1 above is also relevant to this question. Paragraph 40 of MT 2030 states that the nature of an allowance is not to be determined by reference solely to the period for which it is paid. It is not appropriate to simply apply the practical general rule that, where the period away does not exceed 21 days, the employee is living away from home. A closer examination of Scenario B reveals that it contains more of the indicators that support the conclusion that the allowance is a travelling allowance, not a LAFHA. The employee will be receiving the breakfast and dinner allowance because he or she: · will be travelling in the course of performing their job · will not be accompanied by their spouse and family · will be paid for a relatively short period · have no change of residence, and · there is no change to the employee's job location in relation to paying the allowance. The breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee will therefore be a travel allowance. | Summary: Not applicable. | Summary: As the employee will not be living away from home, the provision of accommodation to the employee cannot be a residual benefit that is exempt under subsection 47(5). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: To be an exempt benefit under subsection 47(5) requires amongst other things that the accommodation be provided solely by reason that the employee is required to live away from his or her normal residence in order to perform their employment duties. This requirement is not satisfied when an employee is travelling in the course of performing their job. | Summary: The taxable value of the residual fringe benefits arising from the provision of the accommodation to the employee can be reduced under section 52 because the employee would have been entitled to claim such an expense as an income tax deduction. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Under section 52 the taxable value of a residual fringe benefit may be reduced in accordance with the otherwise deductible rule. Applied to Scenario B, this means that you may reduce the taxable value of the residual fringe benefits arising from the provision of the accommodation by the amount the employee would have been entitled to claim as an income tax deduction if both of the following conditions are satisfied: · the residual benefit is not be provided as a fringe benefit, and · the employee pays for the accommodation. As the employee is travelling in the course of performing their job, he or she would have been entitled to claim as an income tax deduction the expenditure on accommodation. Consequently, you may reduce the taxable value of the residual fringe benefit to nil. | Summary: The taxable value of the employee's residual fringe benefits cannot be reduced by the exempt accommodation component under subsection 31A(2). This reduction only applies to LAFHA fringe benefits. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The reduction in taxable value in respect of the exempt accommodation component under subsection 31A(2) only applies to LAFHA fringe benefits. The benefit is a residual fringe benefit and its taxable value may be reduced under section 52. Refer to the reasons for decision relating to the answer to Issue 2, Question 4 above. | Summary: Not applicable. | Summary: You are not entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1). Location A is not remote for the purposes of subsection 59(1) because it is adjacent to an eligible urban area (location G). | Detailed Reasoning - Remote area housing benefit: From the 1 April 2000 all housing benefits defined as "remote area housing benefits" provided by an employer or an associate will be exempt from fringe benefits tax (FBT) under Section 58ZC of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (the Act). Previously the FBT exemption for remote area housing under Section 58ZA has been repealed and all "remote area housing benefits" will be exempt from FBT under Section 58ZC. Subsection 58ZC(2) requires the following conditions to be satisfied before a housing benefit provided in respect of an employee's employment in a remote area can qualify as an exempt "remote area housing benefit" . (a) During the whole of the tenancy period, the unit of accommodation must be located in a State or internal Territory and not at a location in, or adjacent to, an eligible urban area . (b) The employee must be a current employee for the whole of the tenancy period and the employee's usual place of employment must have been in a remote area. (c) It must be necessary for the employer to provide or arrange free or subsidised housing to employees for the following reasons: (i) the nature of the employers business is such that employees are likely to be frequently required to change their places of residence; or (ii) there is not sufficient suitable residential accommodation at or near the place(s) of employment other than those provided by the employer; or (iii) it is customary in the employer's industry to provide free or subsidised housing to employees; and (d) The arrangement under which the accommodation is provided must be an arm's length arrangement and it must not be provided under an agreement for the purposes of obtaining the concessions provided by this provision. Paragraph 140(1)(a) provides that an eligible urban area is a reference to an area that is an urban centre with a census population (based on the 1981 Census) of not less than 14,000 (or 28,000 for an urban centre located in Zone A or B for Income Tax purposes), Paragraph 140(1)(b), which relates to housing benefits provided to most employees, defines a location that is adjacent to an eligible urban area to be either: (i) situated less than 40 kilometres, by the shortest practicable surface route, from the centre point of an eligible urban area with a census population of less than 130,000, or (ii) situated less than 100 kilometres, by the shortest practicable surface route, from the centre point of an eligible urban area with a census population of at least 130,000. Consequently, a location will be in a remote area (and not near an eligible urban area) where it is: · 40 kilometres or more from a town or city with a census population of 14,000 or more, if that town is not in Zone A or B for Income Tax purposes · 40 kilometres or more from a town or city with a census population of 28,000 or more, if that town is in Zone A or B for Income Tax purposes, and · 100 kilometres or more from a town or city with a census population of 130,000 or more. | Detailed Reasoning - Extension of the remote area housing exemption for some regional employers: However, for the purposes of section 58ZC , section 140(1A) allows, in relation to housing benefits, a different definition of a location which is adjacent to an eligible urban area. This alternative definition is only relevant to certain employers and includes the employer. For the employer, a location will be adjacent to an eligible urban area if it is within 100 kilometres, by the shortest practicable surface route, from the centre point of an eligible urban area with a census population of at least 130,000. Practice Statement Law Administration PS LA 2000/6 titled Fringe benefits tax: what is considered to be remote for the purposes of the remote area housing benefit, provides guidance and a list of locations considered to be remote. Attachment 1 in PS LA 2000/6 contains a listing of towns establishing whether or not they are in or adjacent to an eligible urban area, as defined in paragraph 140(1)(b). Attachment 2 contains a listing of towns establishing whether or not they are in or adjacent to an eligible urban area, as defined in subsection 140(1A). In accordance with paragraph 16 of PS LA 2000/6, the listings in the Attachments to this Practice Statement should not be seen as exhaustive and should only be used as a guide. For towns that are not mentioned in the lists, the guidance provided in the Practice Statement should be applied to determine whether they are in a remote or non-remote area for FBT purposes. Of particular relevance to this ruling is the point that the extended definition of remote area for certain employers (including the employer) does NOT apply to the remote area reductions explained in our publication Fringe benefits tax: a guide for employers at section 19.2. Included in this section is the 50% concession for remote area residential fuel under section 59. Consequently, for the purposes of section 59, a location will be in a remote area (and not near an eligible urban area) where it is: · 40 kilometres or more from a town or city with a census population of 14,000 or more, if that town is not in Zone A or B for Income Tax purposes · 40 kilometres or more from a town or city with a census population of 28,000 or more, if that town is in Zone A or B for Income Tax purposes, and · 100 kilometres or more from a town or city with a census population of 130,000 or more. We have considered the relevant material in PS LA 2000/6 and the FBT employer's guide. We have applied the above tests and concluded that location A is not a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1) because it is located within 40 km from location G, a location that is not in Zone A or B with a census population of 14,000 or more. For each year of tax covered by this ruling, you are not entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1) by reducing the amount that would otherwise be taxable value of the relevant fringe benefit that is included in paragraph 59(1)(b), by 50%. | Summary: You are entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1). Location B is a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The explanation provided in respect of Issue 3 Question 1 above under the heading 'Detailed reasons Remote area housing benefit' is also relevant to this question. We have considered the relevant material in PS LA 2000/6 and the FBT employer's guide. We have applied the non-extended meaning of 'remote area' to your location and concluded that location B is a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1). For each year of tax covered by this ruling, you are entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1) by reducing the amount that would otherwise be taxable value of the relevant fringe benefit that is included in paragraph 59(1)(b), by 50%. | Summary: You are entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1). Location C is a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The explanation provided in respect of Issue 3 Question 1 above under the heading 'Detailed reasons Remote area housing benefit' is also relevant to this question. We have considered the relevant material in PS LA 2000/6 and the FBT employer's guide. We have applied the non-extended meaning of 'remote area' to your location and concluded that location C is a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1). For each year of tax covered by this ruling, you are entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1) by reducing the amount that would otherwise be taxable value of the relevant fringe benefit that is included in paragraph 59(1)(b), by 50%. | Summary: You are not entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1). Location D is not remote for the purposes of subsection 59(1) because it is adjacent to an eligible urban area (location G). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The explanation provided in respect of Issue 3 Question 1 above under the heading 'Detailed reasons Remote area housing benefit' is also relevant to this question. We have considered the relevant material in PS LA 2000/6 and the FBT employer's guide. We have applied the non-extended meaning of 'remote area' to your location and concluded that Location D is not a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1) because it is located within 40 km from location G, a location that is not in Zone A or B with a census population of 14,000 or more. For each year of tax covered by this ruling, you are not entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1) by reducing the amount that would otherwise be taxable value of the relevant fringe benefit that is included in paragraph 59(1)(b), by 50%. | Summary: You are entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1). Location E is a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The explanation provided in respect of Issue 3 Question 1 above under the heading 'Detailed reasons Remote area housing benefit' is also relevant to this question. We have considered the relevant material in PS LA 2000/6 and the FBT employer's guide. We have applied the non-extended meaning of 'remote area' to your location and concluded that location E is a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1). For each year of tax covered by this ruling, you are entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1) by reducing the amount that would otherwise be taxable value of the relevant fringe benefit that is included in paragraph 59(1)(b), by 50%. | Summary: You are not entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1). Location F is not remote for the purposes of subsection 59(1) because it is adjacent to an eligible urban area (location G). | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: The explanation provided in respect of Issue 3 Question 1 above under the heading 'Detailed reasons Remote area housing benefit' is also relevant to this question. We have considered the relevant material in PS LA 2000/6 and the FBT employer's guide. We have applied the non-extended meaning of 'remote area' to your location and concluded that location F is not a remote area for the purposes of subsection 59(1) because it is located within 40 km from location G, a location that is not in Zone A or B with a census population of 14,000 or more. For each year of tax covered by this ruling, you are not entitled to a 50% concession under subsection 59(1) by reducing the amount that would otherwise be taxable value of the relevant fringe benefit that is included in paragraph 59(1)(b), by 50%.

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. | In relation to scenario B, will the breakfast and dinner allowance to be paid to the employee be a travel allowance? | In relation to scenario B, will the provision of accommodation to the employee be a residual benefit that is exempt under subsection 47(5) of the FBTAA? | Question 5: If the answer to question 3 is no, and the employee provides the employer with a declaration under section 31F of the FBTAA, can the taxable value of the fringe benefits be reduced by the exempt accommodation component under subsection 31A(2) of the FBTAA? | In relation to Scenario C, where a housing benefit is provided to an employee who resides in location A, is the employer entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1) of FBTAA? | In relation to Scenario C, where a housing benefit is provided to an employee who resides in location B, is the employer entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1) of FBTAA? | In relation to Scenario C, where a housing benefit is provided to an employee who resides in location C, is the employer entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1) of FBTAA? | In relation to Scenario C, where a housing benefit is provided to an employee who resides in location D, is the employer entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1) of FBTAA? | Question 5: In relation to Scenario C, where a housing benefit is provided to an employee who resides in location E, is the employer entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1) of FBTAA? | Question 6: In relation to Scenario C, where a housing benefit is provided to an employee who resides in location F, is the employer entitled to 50% concession under subsection 59(1) of FBTAA?