M J Heywood & Co
Chartered Accountant
 

Address:
Suite 407
1 Princess St.
Kew, Vic. 3101

Phone:
613 9853 1234

Fax:
613 9853 1023

Email us

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

 Latest Accounting News Service
Hot Issues
How is your super going, ready for retirement?
ATO increasing data exchange with international regulators
Illegal SMSF early access scheme leads to $6,000 fine
Our 'hardest' SMSF tasks
Uber drivers hit for 10% tax
Lack of literacy promotes unrealistic goals
Taxpayer failed to prove that payments were “loans”
New STP dates confirmed as ATO goes on compliance blitz
ATO flags compliance project for FY17/18
Items that heat up your depreciation deductions
Doing a budget is a good idea but ....
Government ‘undermines’ tax system in new moves on property expenses
Taxpayer denied deduction for work expenses of $60,000
Overtime meal expenses disallowed because no allowance received
Key Economic Indicators, 2017
Government to shut down salary sacrifice loophole
Crowdfunding legislation gets greenlight
ATO heavyweight responds to hacking fears
Checklist - Individuals Tax Returns - 2017
Checklist - Tax time 2017 - Company, Trust & Partnership
Checklist - Superannuation Funds - 2017
ATO to ramp up scrutiny of $20K tax break use
‘Bank-like heists’ make way for new wave of cyber crime
ATO reports on key contraventions for 2016-17
ATO, mid-tiers warn on common expenses myths
Articles archive
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 2 April - June 2005
Quarter 4 of 2013
Articles
Penalty for unsubstantiated work-related deduction claims
Death, divorce, relationships and complications
Buying a Property
Plumbers were full-time casuals, not contractors
Resources on our site to help you, your family and/or your business.
Merry Christmas to all our clients, your staff, family and friends.
Residency requirement for CGT home exemption failed
Residency Tested Again - Taxpayer Loses
Parent liable to CGT on half-share of townhouse
ATO information on everyday issues.
Victorian Fire Services Property Levy
Penalty for unsubstantiated work-related deduction claims

 

The AAT has recently affirmed a decision of the Tax Commissioner to impose a penalty on an individual equal to 50 per cent of the tax shortfall .....


... amount arising from deduction claims for work-related expenses that were unsubstantiated.

 

 

 


     

 

The taxpayer made claims as a car salesman for work-related expenses of $30,000 plus for several years.  The Tax Commissioner determined that most of the claims were unsubstantiated and imposed a penalty of approximately $6,000, representing 50 per cent of the tax shortfall of the 2012 year.

The individual did not dispute that the claims were unsubstantiated, but argued that the penalty was severe and that he was unable to pay all of the penalty.  The AAT noted, among other things, that the individual did not retain invoices or receipts, or provide satisfactory evidence to substantiate the claims.  The AAT was of the view that the individual's conduct was more serious than mere failure to take reasonable care, and held that the penalty imposed was appropriate.

It is not clear if the other years were also subject to penalties – if not the taxpayer may have got off lightly!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



17th-December-2013