Private ruling: Work related expenses - health and fitness expenses
Published: March 2015
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2014
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2013

Ruling: Q1: Are expenses you incurred for sports Chiropractic visits, orthotic devices and general physical fitness considered allowable deductions? | A1: No. | Q2: Are expenses you incurred on sunscreen used when coaching sports, considered an allowable deduction where they can be substantiated? | A2: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You are employed as a sports coach. You must maintain a high level of fitness to perform your income earning activity. You incurred expenses attending a Chiropractor, obtaining orthotic devices and other general physical fitness expenses. You incur the above expenses as a precaution to not inflict permanent damage to your body, especially the spine. You also incur expenses for sunscreen which you use when coaching outdoors.

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 to the extent that they are outgoings of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt income. Chiropractic visits, orthotic devices and general physical fitness expenses Generally fitness expenses such as the cost of a gym membership are considered to be private in nature and are therefore not deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997. Taxation Ruling TR 95/17 deals with the deductibility of gymnasium membership fees for Australian Defence Force (ADF) members. Whilst you have also incurred chiropractic and orthotic device expenses, the principles discussed in this ruling also applied to those expenses. TR 95/17 states that a deduction is generally not allowable for fitness expenses for ADF members as these expenses are considered to be private. However a deduction is allowable for these costs if the ADF member can demonstrate that their position requires them to maintain a level of fitness well above the ADF general standard. An example provided in the addendum to TR 95/17 refers to a member of the Special Air Services Regiment (SAS) who is paid to maintain the very highest level of fitness, and plainly differentiates between the level of fitness required of a SAS member and that of an ordinary infantryman. Clearly this taxation ruling follows the principle that unless a taxpayer's normal duties require the very highest level of fitness, deductibility of expenses will be denied. In your case, there is no doubt that your duties as a sports coach requires a certain level of fitness. However, we do not consider the level of fitness required in your case is of the very highest level, as required by an officer in the SAS. Accordingly, expenses relating to the chiropractic visits, orthotic devices and other general fitness expenses is considered to be a private expense and therefore not allowable under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997. Sunscreen In Morris and Ors v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 50 ATR 104; 2002 ATC 4404; [2002] FCA 616 the Federal Court found that the cost of sunscreen, sunglasses and sunhats were deductible in certain circumstances where the worker was required as part of his duties to be exposed to the sun. It is accepted that the duties of your job require you to be exposed to the sun. It is reasonable to expect that protection from sun's rays is required. Therefore, the work related portion of the cost of the sunscreen used to protect you from the sun when you are working is deductible, provided the expenses can be substantiated in accordance with the rules contained in Division 900 of the ITAA 1997.