Private ruling: Fringe Benefits Tax - Living away from home allowance
Published: July 2011
Ruling period: 01 April 2011 - 31 March 2012 | 01 April 2012 - 31 March 2013 | 01 April 2013 - 31 March 2014 | 01 April 2014 - 31 March 2015
Date scheme commenced: 01 April 2011

Ruling: Q1: Will the allowance to be paid to your employee, under the terms of the new employment agreement, be a living-away-from-home allowance (LAFHA) pursuant to section 30 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA)? | A1:  | Q2: If yes, is the taxable value of the LAFHA fringe benefit reduced by the exempt food and accommodation component pursuant to section 31 of the FBTAA? | A2: 

Relevant facts and circumstances: You are located in Australia. Your employee is in Australia on a Subclass 457 temporary resident visa. Your employee intends to return to their overseas home when the position with you is terminated. Your employee came to Australia under a working holiday Visa. When the work and holiday visa ended they began a course in finance while working in hospitality and held a student visa. Your employee lives in rental accommodation in Australia, and has no intention of acquiring any property in Australia. Your employee's family lives in their country of origin. Since commencing employment they have returned to their country of origin and intends to return again over the next two years. Your employee was living in their family home in their country of origin prior to coming to Australia. They co-own this home and have shares in their family business. They are continuing to assist with the mortgage repayments on the property. Your employee has left all their furniture and personal effects at their family home in their country of origin. Your employee will be entering into a new employment agreement. Under the terms of the employment agreement you will pay the employee an allowance for accommodation and additional food costs per annum. You will be paying the allowance to compensate the employee for additional costs incurred as a result of being required to live in Australia to perform their employment duties. The employee will be required to give you a completed Living-away-from-home declaration.


Reasons for decision: Summary: Will the allowance to be paid to the employee, under the terms of the new employment agreement, be a LAFHA pursuant to section 30 of the FBTAA? Section 30 of the FBTAA sets out the circumstances in which a payment to an employee will be a living-away-from-home allowance benefit. Subsection 30(1) states: Where: (a) at a particular time, in respect of the employment of an employee of an employer, the employer pays an allowance to the employee; and (b) it would be concluded that the whole or a part of the allowance is in the nature of compensation to the employee for: (i) additional expenses (not being deductible expenses) incurred by the employee during a period; or (ii) additional expenses (not being deductible expenses) incurred by the employee, and other additional disadvantages to which the employee is subject, during a period; by reason that the employee is required to live away from his or their usual place of residence in order to perform the duties of that employment; the payment of the whole, or of the part, as the case may be, of the allowance constitutes a benefit provided by the employer to the employee at that time. In summarising these requirements an allowance will be a living-away-from home-allowance if: (c) it is reasonable to conclude from all the surrounding circumstances that some or all of the allowance is in the nature of compensation to the employee for: · additional non deductible expenses incurred by the employee during a period; or · additional non deductible expenses and other additional disadvantages to which the employee is subject during a period; and (d) the additional expenses and other disadvantages arise because the employee is required to live away from his or their usual place of residence in order to perform the duties of employment. | Detailed Reasoning - (a) Is the allowance paid for additional non deductible expenses and other disadvantages?: The allowance will be paid to compensate the employee for additional food and accommodation expenses. As the employee would not be able to claim an income tax deduction for these expenses this requirement is satisfied. (b) Do the additional expenses arise because the employee is required to live away from his or her usual place of residence in order to perform the duties of employment? In determining whether the additional expenses will arise as a result of the employee being required to live away from his usual place of residence it is necessary to identify the usual place of residence. The FBTAA does not define 'usual place of residence'. However, in subsection 136(1) it does define a 'place of residence' to mean: (a) a place at which the person resides; or (b) a place at which the person has sleeping accommodation; whether on a permanent or temporary basis and whether or not on a shared basis. In the absence of a legislative reference it is relevant to refer to the ordinary meaning of 'usual'. The Macquarie Dictionary defines 'usual' to mean: 1. habitual or customary: his usual skill. 2. such as is commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary: the usual January weather. 3. in common use; common: say the usual things. noun 4. that which is usual or habitual. phrase 5. as usual, as is (or was) usual; in the customary or ordinary manner: he will come as usual. Guidelines for determining an employee's usual place of residence are provided by Miscellaneous Taxation Ruling MT 2030 Fringe benefits tax: living-away-from-home allowance benefits. Paragraphs 15 to 18 refer to various decision of Taxation Boards of Review relating to the former 51A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936). In referring to these decisions paragraph 14 of MT 2030 states: As the decisions illustrate, the question whether an employee is living away from his or her usual place of residence normally involves a choice between two places of residence, i.e., the place where the employee is living at the time or some other place. A person is regarded as living away from a usual place of residence if, but for having to change residence in order to work temporarily for his employer at another locality, the employee would have continued to live at the former place. It would be relevant in reaching that view that there is an intention or expectation of the employee returning to live at the former place of residence on cessation of work at the temporary job locality. This would be relevant even if the employee is living in temporary quarters close to a temporary job site. Further discussion occurs at paragraphs 19 to 25. Paragraph 20 provides the following general rule: Employees who move to a new locality to take up a position of limited duration with an intention to return to the old locality at the end of the appointment would generally be treated as living away from their usual place of residence. For example, a construction worker having to travel to a construction site to live and work would be in this category unless he had abandoned the former place of residence upon moving to the locality of the site. A case of the latter situation would be where the employee decided to permanently leave the former home, e.g., if a resident of Sydney, on obtaining a job for two years on a construction site in a remote part of Western Australia, decided to "sell up" in Sydney and move permanently to Western Australia to live. As an example of the application of this general rule paragraph 22 states: Examples of employees on appointments of finite duration who will generally be living away from their usual place of residence are foreign nationals employed in Australia on a temporary basis and Australian residents (e.g., export consultants, diplomats, immigration officials, etc.) stationed in a foreign country for a time. Provided the appointment is for a limited period and the employee can be expected in the normal course to return to the same city or district of the home country to live, the employee may be treated as living away from his or her usual place of residence. However, this is subject to paragraph 21 which states: Some employees may be unable to establish that they are living away from their usual place of residence because the transitory nature of their lifestyle means that their usual place of residence is wherever they happen to sleep at night. Employees who follow the job, say, from construction site to construction site and have no permanent place of residence would fit into this particular category. Further examples are provided in paragraph 25 which states: … certain kinds of occupations have a career structure which brings with it the necessity to accept regular transfers from one location to another, e.g., police officers, school teachers, members of the defence force, bank employees, etc. Employees in these situations will generally not be treated as living away from home when they move on transfer to live in proximity to the current work place. That will be the case even if the employee owns a home elsewhere in which he or she eventually intends to reside. These principles and the various cases that have considered usual place of abode or usual place of residence were discussed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in Compass Group (Vic) Pty Ltd (as trustee for White Roche & Associates Hybrid Trust) v FC of T [2008] AATA 845; 2008 ATC 10-051. At paragraphs 55 and 56 Deputy President S A Forgie said: 55. There are several principles that can be gleaned from these cases. The first is that the fact that s 30 and, before it, s 51A, are concerned with what is described as a living-away-from-home allowance. That allowance is paid by an employer to an employee in respect of the employee's employment. It is a payment in the nature of compensation. The compensation is to meet additional expenses the employee incurs during a particular period and for other additional disadvantages he or she faces in that period but only if the expenses are incurred because he or she is required to live away from his or her usual place of residence in order to perform the duties of employment. As Mr Cotes alluded to in CaseB47 , it necessarily assumes that the taxpayer has two places that could be described as his or her place of residence before one or the other needs to be identified as the "usual place of residence". 56. Putting to one side the case of Case 50 , all cases looked to the taxpayer's place of residence before he or she acquired another place of residence. Each looked to the taxpayer's continuing connection with the first place of residence including matters such as whether his or her family continued to live there, the frequency of the taxpayer's visits there and whether or not that was a place to which the taxpayer could return at will if he or she so wished. Also relevant was the nature of the employment and whether the move to another place was a temporary or permanent move. In considering the factors referred to by the AAT the following factors indicate the employee's usual place of residence is in their country of origin: your employee has taken up a position of limited duration and intends to return to their parent's home in their country of origin upon the expiry of their visa your employee has a subclass 457 temporary visa your employee's family lives in their country of origin they have visited their family in their country of origin and intend to visit again over the next two years your employee lives in rental accommodation in Australia, and has no intention of acquiring any property in Australia your employee has maintained, and continues to pay the mortgage on, their part ownership in the family home in their country of origin and has left all their furniture and personal effects at the family home they have part ownership of the family business in their country of origin. It is concluded that the employee is living away from home in accordance with paragraphs 20 and 22 of MT 2030 as they has taken up a position of limited duration with an intention to return to their family home in their country of origin upon expiration of their visa. We consider that the additional expenses arise as your employee is required to live away from their usual place of residence in their country of origin, to perform their duties of employment in Australia. | Detailed Reasoning - Question 2: If yes, is the taxable value of the LAFHA fringe benefit reduced by the exempt food and accommodation component pursuant to section 31 of the FBTAA? Section 31 of the FBTAA sets out the method for calculating the taxable value of a LAFHA. It states that where fringe benefit is covered by subsection 30(1) the taxable value is: the amount of the recipients allowance reduced by: (i) any exempt accommodation component; and (ii) any exempt food component; or 'Exempt accommodation component' and 'exempt food component' are defined in subsection 136(1) of the FBTAA. Both definitions provide that the exempt amount will depend upon whether the employee provides a Living away from home declaration. If a declaration is not provided, the exempt components will have a nil value. | Detailed Reasoning - Exempt food component: If a declaration is provided, the exempt food component is so much of the allowance as is reasonable compensation for additional expenses on food. It is arrived at by first ascertaining the 'food component' of the allowance. If the amount of the 'food component' is set with the intention that it covers all food costs of the employee and family, the exempt food component is the excess of that component over what the employee would normally spend on food if he or she was not living away from home. However, if the food component of the allowance has been set to reflect only additional costs by reducing the allowance for home food costs, and the amount of the reduction on this account equals or exceeds the statutory food amounts, the amount of the net food component is the exempt food component. You have advised that the amount of the food component will be net of normal food costs. As the food component of the allowance is the excess over what the employee would normally spend on food if they was not living away from home, the amount of the food component will be the exempt food component. | Detailed Reasoning - Exempt accommodation component: If a declaration is provided, the exempt accommodation component is so much of the allowance as is reasonable compensation for additional expenses on accommodation that the employee could reasonably be expected to incur. As the accommodation component is equal to the rent being paid by your employee the amount of the accommodation component will be the exempt accommodation component as your employee will be providing a declaration. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: Therefore, as your employee will be providing a declaration the taxable value of the LAFHA will be reduced to by the exempt accommodation and food components.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.