Compare documents

No. The character of the expenditure is neither incidental nor relevant to the work a taxpayer is engaged to perform. Accordingly the expenditure is not incurred in gaining or producing assessable income as required under the first limb of subsection 51(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

The expenditure relates to a decision the effect of which is to preserve anonymity and privacy. Therefore the outgoing is private in nature and is excluded from deductibilty under subsection 51(1) of the Act.

The view taken in this Determination is supported by the decision in Frankcom v. FC of T 82 ATC 4599 at 4607; (1982) 13 ATR 636 at 644-645. The Court held that expenditure for the protection of a taxpayer's home and members of his or her family is of a private or domestic nature. Examples: A police officer maintains a silent telephone number due to the fact that he does not wish to expose his family to threatening calls. The additional cost of maintaining the silent telephone number is not deductible. Other occupations that may fall within this category would include taxation officers, politicians and judges. In all instances the cost of maintaining the silent number is not allowable.