Case S44

Judges:
MB Hogan Ch
P Gerber M
GW Beck M

Court:
No. 3 Board of Review

Judgment date: 14 June 1985.

---

M.B. Hogan (Chairman), Drs P. Gerber and G.W. Beck (Members)

This reference involves an officer of the Taxation Department who in the tax years 1981 to 1983 inclusive was a part-time student in law. He claimed amounts in each year for ``self-education'' expenses over and above the allowance of $250 by way of rebate provided for by sec. 159U. The Commissioner allowed all claims, including the travel costs between the Tax Office and the tertiary institution. The only disputes relate to the deductibility of the cost of travel between

---

ATC 345

the institution and home and the appropriate rate per kilometre to the extent the travel cost is allowable.

2. Although we were taken on a Cook's Tour of Sydney and surrounds, tracing the various places of residence of the taxpayer and their relation to the institution, the matter is ultimately one of law. Given that the studies are part and parcel of the taxpayer's income-earning activities (
F.C. of T. v. Lacelles-Smith 78 ATC 4162) so that the cost of travel from the Tax Office to TI is incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income, is the final home stretch from the institution to the place of residence likewise an outgoing deductible under sec. 51?

3. Nothing can be more domestic than going home, and the cost of getting there is classically an outgoing of a domestic nature save in exceptional circumstances. Going home from a tertiary institution remains ``domestic'' notwithstanding that the reason for being there is reasonably calculated to lead to promotion. On any given day, this taxpayer commenced his journey from home, travelled to his office, continued on to the tertiary institution, and concluded his journey by going home. The first and last ``leg'' are not deductible.

4. The argument is not new. It was advanced before Board of Review No. 1 in Case H18,
76 ATC 130 and before Board of Review No. 2 in Case S25,
85 ATC 263. Both claims failed for much the same reason that this claim now fails before this Board.

5. On the question of the appropriate rate per kilometre, the taxpayer applied one formula, the Commissioner another. No evidence was called as to why we should prefer one rate over another, and since the taxpayer bears the onus of showing that the assessment is excessive, he fails.

6. We would uphold the Commissioner's decision on the objections.

Claim disallowed