Contracting v. Salaried Employment

[RooFlyer]

Not according to my accountant.

It's been said here numerous times by numerous people that you should get someone else to look at that, as it's likely wrong unless you have some special circumstance.

As you do not seem minded to do that, I guess you prefer to keep complaining here rather than do something about it?

 

[rock86]

Not according to my accountant.

On the face of it from your comments, your accountant is dead wrong, and as others have said you should have went elsewhere rather then just complain that 'it's the governments fault'.

 

[Mogul]

Not any more (1st July 2017) you cant, in relation to travel to investment properties.

This only applies to residential and not commercial / industrial properties from memory.

 

[Daver6]

This only applies to residential and not commercial / industrial properties from memory.

Good catch. I believe you're quite correct.

 

[JohnK]

On the face of it from your comments, your accountant is dead wrong, and as others have said you should have went elsewhere rather then just complain that 'it's the governments fault'.

I said income tax was wrong as it was applied to people differently. This thread spawned from those comments. My opinion is not wrong so I'll continue to complain about this inconsistent income taxation policy where the brave are rewarded over the cowards.

As for inspecting investment property this was discussed with accountant a number of times and he advised against claiming "reasonable travel expenses to inspect your property". Why? I'll have to discuss it again with him next time I see him but I think we were worried about comments such as this one

".... larger claims for travelling expenses in connection with a rental property which is in an interstate location for example, or even overseas, are more likely to attract the attention of Tax Office auditors, who will want to see written evidence not only of the actual costs, but evidence which exclude the possibility that the expenses are private, or only incidentally associated with the rental activity."

I chose the path of not giving the ATO a reason to audit.

 

[Mogul]

I said income tax was wrong as it was applied to people differently. This thread spawned from those comments. My opinion is not wrong so I'll continue to complain about this inconsistent income taxation policy where the brave are rewarded over the cowards.

As for inspecting investment property this was discussed with accountant a number of times and he advised against claiming "reasonable travel expenses to inspect your property". Why? I'll have to discuss it again with him next time I see him but I think we were worried about comments such as this one

".... larger claims for travelling expenses in connection with a rental property which is in an interstate location for example, or even overseas, are more likely to attract the attention of Tax Office auditors, who will want to see written evidence not only of the actual costs, but evidence which exclude the possibility that the expenses are private, or only incidentally associated with the rental activity."

I chose the path of not giving the ATO a reason to audit.

Rental properties - claiming travel expenses deductions

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I chose the path of not giving the ATO a reason to audit.

Well if you are only making valid deductions in all your affairs, then why would that be an issue?

If you choose to not claim what is allowable then that is your choice. Perhaps follow you own advice earlier

where the brave are rewarded over the cowards.

 

[rock86]

As for inspecting investment property this was discussed with accountant a number of times and he advised against claiming "reasonable travel expenses to inspect your property". Why? I'll have to discuss it again with him next time I see him but I think we were worried about comments such as this one

".... larger claims for travelling expenses in connection with a rental property which is in an interstate location for example, or even overseas, are more likely to attract the attention of Tax Office auditors, who will want to see written evidence not only of the actual costs, but evidence which exclude the possibility that the expenses are private, or only incidentally associated with the rental activity."

I chose the path of not giving the ATO a reason to audit.

So if you chose that path, then the travel expenses were all not purely for inspecting your investment property and contained private elements to the trips? Otherwise there is absolutely no valid reason for you too have to been worried about an ATO audit, as the expenses would have been purely attributable to managing your investment property and allowable as a deduction under the taxation act at the time.

 

[RooFlyer]

Well if you are only making valid deductions in all your affairs, then why would that be an issue?

If you choose to not claim what is allowable then that is your choice. Perhaps follow you own advice earlier

Never underestimate the value of incessant complaining about the same thing over and over versus actually doing something about it.

 

[RooFlyer]

So if you chose that path, then the travel expenses were all not purely for inspecting your investment property and contained private elements to the trips?

The same member had said in another thread that they brought valuables into Australia without declaring them and paying duty, and would do so again, if that's any guide.

 

[Pushka]

Well if you are only making valid deductions in all your affairs, then why would that be an issue?

If you choose to not claim what is allowable then that is your choice. Perhaps follow you own advice earlier

I'm with JohnK here. Dont flag by claiming something that you cannot completely justify. And there is usually some grey in every claim you make. Not worth it.

The same member had said in another thread that they brought valuables into Australia without declaring them and paying duty, and would do so again, if that's any guide.

I reckon its more a matter of what you think you can get away with and such claims dont sic the ATO on to you if you get caught. JMO

 

[drron]

Although never trust a tax man.Many moons ago my accountant proposed an investment for 10 of us medicos.The investment was sent to a deputy commissioner for taxation who supplied written advice that the proposed deductions were valid.So the investment went ahead and all deductions were disallowed.
Eventually won but costs basically ate up all profit.

 

[RooFlyer]

Dont flag by claiming something that you cannot completely justify.

Sure, but having decided on that course of action, maybe they might stop complaining about it?

 

[JohnK]

Well if you are only making valid deductions in all your affairs, then why would that be an issue?

If you choose to not claim what is allowable then that is your choice. Perhaps follow you own advice earlier

I only claim what is allowable but I don't want to go through the pain of an ATO audit. You need to provide details for everything and that takes time and will cost money.

I already have enough to deal with and it is just not worth the hassle. You may see it differently.

 

[Pushka]

I only claim what is allowable but I don't want to go through the pain of an ATO audit. You need to provide details for everything and that takes time and will cost money.

I already have enough to deal with and it is just not worth the hassle. You may see it differently.

Pretty sure we all get that and which is my point when you are so concerned about the 15 cent bag levy.

 

[Pushka]

Although never trust a tax man.Many moons ago my accountant proposed an investment for 10 of us medicos.The investment was sent to a deputy commissioner for taxation who supplied written advice that the proposed deductions were valid.So the investment went ahead and all deductions were disallowed.
Eventually won but costs basically ate up all profit.

Did you get a Private Ruling prior?

 

[drron]

Did you get a Private Ruling prior?

It was a written opinion of a Deputy Commisssioner.My belief is that the case became one of those that led to Private Rulings.

 

[rock86]

It was a written opinion of a Deputy Commisssioner.My belief is that the case became one of those that led to Private Rulings.

Your tax advisor should have got a private ruling in the first instance, they are binding.

 

[JessicaTam]

I only claim what is allowable but I don't want to go through the pain of an ATO audit. You need to provide details for everything and that takes time and will cost money.

I already have enough to deal with and it is just not worth the hassle. You may see it differently.

I had an investment property in Mildura and visited it twice a year. A simple matter of keeping the flight receipts and including them with the paperwork I sent my accountant each year.

If you can validate your claims then do so. Or not. Your choice. Hardly the fault of 'the government' if you choose not to.

 

[burmans]

Your tax advisor should have got a private ruling in the first instance, they are binding.

Yep, an opinion is just that, what they think at the time - whereas PR's are binding.