Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Taxable deductions - Expenses for food a benefit

In a recent Change of Assessment that I am aware of, for the reason against 1 of the 15 taxable deductions the decision resulted in all such deductions being removed (i.e. 14 reasons not given). This was objected to, the result that a second reason was given so the remaining 13 deductions that were removed had no reasons as to why. It is the new reason that I would like to discuss, although the basic theme could, in my opinion be applied to the removal of all tax deductions.

Anyway the Objections officer, after giving a reason not to have a reason as a reason to remove the deduction, then went on to say:-

The Objections Officer said
Another example is the meal allowance of $xxx. Again this may well be allowable for tax purposes
MikeT thinking about it said
(just thought, this obviously indicates the the officer does not possess the knowledge to determine this, so one must wonder what the objections officer is doing looking into issues for which she has no knowledge off)
but I do not think it fair from the perspective of the calculations of child support
MikeT thinking about it said
(I can't find anywhere in the legislation that anything has to be fair to the calculation of child support, the legislation does stipulate that decisions have to be fair to the community, both parents and the child though)
. This is because X benefits from savings on x's normal costs of the food that x would otherwise consume at home.

I started thinking about this last night and hey it's not a benefit at all. In fact I believe that there is a very obvious cost disadvantage to the person and that it is extremely unfair to disallow this tax deduction on the basis of it being a benefit.

My thoughts are, it costs a great deal more to purchase food for consumption outside the home. For example you'd be lucky to get change from $10 for a reasonable meal outside the home, whilst both Woolworths and Coles are running campaigns that give ideas for meals, for 4, for under $10.00. As such a meal at home would cost $2.50. Thus using this as the basis the cost is 4 times. However that is not all, if you put in a claim for $10, the benefit received is far less, between $1.50 (15%) and $4.50 (45%), assuming the average, you get a reduction of $3.00 thus introducing another factor which then equates to the outside meal in real terms costing about 13 times as much.

Perhaps I'm an idiot but how can what is clearly an expenditure be classed as a saving?

In fact to be fair shouldn't such tax deductions, to be fair, be increased to cover the actual loss in regard to child support?

I believe this extends to any tax deduction as the outlay must exceed the amount that is reimbursed.
I agree. I think this is another example of the decisions attempting to increase monthly liabilities through fair means or foul. Is it wrong of me to assume it was the PYR getting the meal allowances? I'd be highly surprised if it was the PYE… Are there any decisions where PYEs have had similar allowances added to income? It's only fair to be consistent.
Mike T, there are a set of interactions between industrial awards and tax law that need to be taken into account.  On the surface, this decision seems out of step with normal expectations that if you are away from home for work reasons the employer will reimburse reasonable out of pocket expenses.  A realistic position would be to find out what a CSA officer would get if away for work and include any excess as CS income.  But haven't seen enough detail to make any definitive comment.

Last edit: by OneRingRules

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets