It is said that in the capital Canberra, there is a civil servant named Paul McKenzie who served the Ministry of Defense. Between 2012 and 2015, he and a colleague had a conflict at work. Since then, they have been depressed and eventually led to a mental disorder. At the end of 2014, he couldn't control his emotions and committed domestic violence against his family. As a result, he was arrested by the police and sent to court. In March 2015, the court withdrew the prosecution against Mr. Mak after investigation, arguing that his behavior was caused by a mental disorder. The court also ruled that Mr. Mak needs to be looked after by his uncle in Perth.

In order to move to Perth, Mr. Mai incurred a cost of $8,598.82 (including air tickets, car rental fees, and moving expenses). He unceremoniously took these expenses as work-related expenses and included them in his 2015 and 2016 fiscal year personal taxes to deduct his salary income. In 2017, the tax bureau began to review Mr. Mak’s personal tax, but it turned out that he disagreed with these deductions and recalculated his tax payment. In February 2018, Mr. Mak formally appealed to the arbitration court and demanded that the court give him justice.

Mr. Mak set out the facts confidently: work-dispute-go Ape-Domestic violence- Judgment-Relocation -cost. Of course the culprit is work. Doesn’t it mean that work-related expenses are tax deductible?

The tax bureau rightly retorted-These expenses are private in nature and of course not tax deductible.

So let's see what the law says

Income Tax Assessment Act Section 8-1 General Deductions (Article 97 Paragraph 8 of the 1 Income Tax Act-General Deductions) states that taxpayers can be deducted

● Expenses related to earning taxable income

● Expenses related to doing business to earn taxable profits

But these expenses cannot be

● Capital expenditure

● Private expenses

● Expenses related to earning tax-free income

● Expenses that the law clearly stipulates that cannot be deducted, such as eating, drinking, and fines

Let’s take a look at how the court interprets the above clauses.

The arbitration court held that although the cost of Mr. Mai’s relocation was traced back to the source, it has something to do with work, but work-related in the tax law refers to the direct connection with work. This directness must be very strong, and there should be no inconsistencies. . The direct reason for Mr. Mak’s relocation was that the court ruled that he needed someone to take care of him. The work did not directly cause him to relocate (for example, the boss sent you to a foreign country to open a branch), so the relocation was a private relocation and has nothing to do with work. .