Case U54
Members:PM Roach SM
Tribunal:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
P.M. Roach (Senior Member)
The applicant claims an income tax deduction in the sum of $2,480 pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act ("the Act"). The claim is for a deduction in relation to the cost incurred by the applicant in undertaking a tour in China. The tour was undertaken between 17 December 1982 and 10 January 1983. He and his wife travelled together during a period of recreation leave available to both of them. Having regard to the vastness and complexity of China and the limited time available the tour was confined to few parts of China. On the other hand in the time available the travellers were able to see as much of China and of Chinese society as the governing authorities in that country permitted.
2. The applicant migrated to Australia from the United Kingdom via Canada. In Canada he had taken the degrees of B.A. and M.A. He also held a Diploma of Education. In 1978 he took up an appointment as a Lecturer II with a college of advanced education ("the college") and has remained in their employment at all material times since. His wife's employment was also with the college, but was not in an academic position. He was promoted to the rank of Senior Lecturer II in 1981 and at the time of hearing (November 1986) expected to shortly apply for promotion to the rank of Senior Lecturer I. The next promotion beyond that would be to the rank of Principal Lecturer. Each promotion would be attended by an increase in his rate of remuneration. At the date of hearing he was, as he had been for some years, on the staff of the School of General Studies as Senior Lecturer in History. He was one of three senior lecturers out of approximately twenty persons on the full-time staff of the school. There were numerous part-time staff.
3. Pursuant to the Regulations made under the statute constituting the college he held a tenured appointment. Such an appointment could be terminated because his services were redundant; for misconduct or breach; or upon six months' notice. Termination for redundancy was to be attended by payment of a "separation allowance". Termination on the other grounds could only be effected by a resolution of a majority of two-thirds of the members of the council of the college. Heads of School were responsible for the supervision of all teaching, examining, research and other work carried out. Not being a Head of School, the applicant was obliged to work under the general direction of his superior officer and to perform such teaching, examining and other duties as his superior officer required. He could be granted staff development leave to undertake "a professional experience programme for study or research purposes", in which event he was obliged to provide (inter alia) a written report on that leave and the study or research
ATC 356
undertaken by him and of any business or employment in which he engaged during the period of that leave. He could be granted leave of absence for defence purposes; for conferences; and for periods not exceeding three days for personal reasons of sufficient importance. Female officers could be granted "maternity leave". Over and above that he could receive financial assistance in relation to undertaking approved courses of study. He could qualify for allowances in respect of travelling undertaken in the course of his duties and there was a residual power to grant other leave of absence, with or without full pay, for such periods as the council of the college would determine.4. In accordance with those formally defined responsibilities and entitlements the applicant undertook face-to-face teaching within the School of General Studies and also conducted external study courses. Some 70% of his students were "student-teachers". At all material times he taught subjects described as Early Modern European History; African History; and Third World History (2 Units). The syllabuses for those courses and the relationship between those courses and the degrees for which the students were enrolled was not established in evidence. I am not persuaded that the courses were essential to the degree or diploma courses being undertaken or constituted of necessity major courses of study within those course structures. That is not to denigrate the importance of the subjects. No doubt the objectives were twofold: to contribute to the education of the students in the hope that in that way they would come to be better teachers should that be their chosen career but in any event better educated and, hopefully, thereby better persons; and also to specifically prepare the student-teachers for their teaching responsibilities (if any) in those fields of study.
5. Future advancement, if any, in the career of the applicant with the college will only be possible as opportunity arises and will then be based upon merit as perceived by others. Within the college there has been such a substantial reorganisation in quite basic matters (some courses have been abolished and others modified) that there is a feeling of insecurity on the part of staff. Some staff have already been retrenched. Others, such as the taxpayer, have a sense of insecurity in their own positions. In particular, the applicant, as a 50-year-old, feels insecure when he looks at his subordinates, to find at least one who is not only younger but better qualified academically.
6. The particular field of academic interest for the taxpayer is in the area of Afro-Asian studies - the field in which he took his post graduate degree. Those studies were centred on North Africa but he has had a broad and diverse interest in many third world countries.
7. His overseas travelling has taken him to different parts of the world summarised in the following:
Leave Year Destination
Annual 1974 Malaya, Thailand, Indonesia
Annual 1975 Philippines, Hong Kong, Taiwan
Annual 1976 Greece, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Israel
Special 1977 New Caledonia and Tahiti
Special 1978 China, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore
Special 1979 and 1980 Hawaii, USA, Canada (8 months)
Annual 1980 England, France, Morocco
Annual 1981 Vanuatu, New Caledonia
Annual 1982 China and Hong Kong
Special 1983 Malaysia, Singapore
Annual 1984 Egypt, Israel, Turkey and Italy
Annual 1985 Indonesia
ATC 357
In 1984 the applicant was granted two weeks' additional leave by the college with pay. In 1978, the special leave was for four weeks with pay and occasioned absence from teaching duties for approximately one week. In 1983 the special leave was with pay and involved the applicant in presenting an academic paper at a conference in Singapore. On most of those journeys husband and wife travelled together but there were exceptions. During the period of prolonged study leave in 1979-1980 period the applicant's wife only joined him in Hawaii for a brief period. She did not accompany him on either of the 1978 or 1983 travels.
8. The applicant made the point that one of the difficulties of lecturing in the field of contemporary history is that of acquiring adequate, up-to-date material. The time intervals involved in the commissioning, researching, writing, publication and distribution of tertiary texts is such that in the area of contemporary history many new publications are out of date when they come into circulation. We live in a period of rapid change. That is particularly so in relation to China. China has been a major world power and an influence on world affairs over long periods and has been influential even when it has sealed its borders to foreigners. Change has been constant since the establishment of the present government in the late 1940s when foreigners were expelled and its borders closed. In the late 1970s foreigners were admitted to a limited degree and the applicant was able to pay his first visit in 1978. He gave no details of that experience.
9. Then came the opportunity to undertake the 1982-1983 tour. It was organised by the Australia-China Society, which the applicant and his wife joined in order they might participate in the tour. The itinerary was determined by Chinese authorities who determined where they would go and what they might see in each place visited. As it was not possible to enter China on any terms than those, the applicant was content to take the opportunity to observe as much as was permitted. In fact, as it eventuated, the itinerary initially proposed to the applicant as the likely itinerary was substantially followed. In all that they did they were attended by guides and interpreters. (The applicant did not claim any mastery of spoken or written Chinese.) He saw something of rural development and the development of free markets. In the course of the tour he took some 600 slides and since his return has incorporated some slides and some of the learning he gained into the courses he is responsible to teach.
10. The tour cost $2,359 paid by each to the Australia-China Society; and an estimated $341 for the applicant for incidental costs, including accommodation in Sydney, meals and taxis. He received a grant of $210 as a contribution to his travelling expenses from the college and claims the net amount of $2,480 as a tax deduction.
11. The particular claim of the applicant has to be determined in accordance with established authority as to the correct interpretation and application of sec. 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act ("the Act") in circumstances such as these. Both parties correctly identify the decision in C. of T. v. Finn - a decision of a Full Bench of the High Court of Australia (1961) 106 C.L.R. 60 - as the starting point, but their action in doing so points up the major difference between them. Each considers the decision in Finn to provide clear support for totally opposed views as to how this reference should be determined. Because it is a decision frequently cited but, I suspect, rarely read closely by those who cite it in argument, I will refer to it in detail.
12. Some of the circumstances giving rise to the claim of Finn are detailed in the preamble to the report; others appear from the reasons for decision of his Honour, the Chief Justice. The preamble (at p. 61) records:
"Gordon William Finn (hereinafter called `the taxpayer') was a senior architect in the Public Works Department of Western Australia engaged on building designs. Being entitled to six months long service leave and also eight weeks accumulated recreation leave, he arranged to carry out plans he had previously made to visit Great Britain and Europe for the purpose of bringing himself up to date with overseas trends in his profession and to fit him for future promotion in his employment. Prior to his leaving Australia it was arranged that he should extend his trip to South America and make a survey of architecture there on behalf of the Government. For this purpose the Government contributed £868 towards the cost of the return trip from England to South America, and extended his leave of
ATC 358
absence for the necessary period. The taxpayer left Australia by ship on 22nd April 1957, and arrived in England on 20th May where he remained until 3rd July. Thereafter he visited places on the Continent, returning to England on 7th September. He left for South America on 1st October 1957. In all, he spent 68 days in England, 66 days in Europe and 67 days in South America. Throughout the tour he was engaged exclusively in studying architecture in its many forms, and conferring with leading architects in the cities he visited. He took hundreds of photographs and collected much material throughout the tour for future reference. He returned to Western Australia on 30th January 1958."
Other facts are recorded in the judgment of Dixon C.J. (at p. 64):
"The facts of the present case may be thought simple enough but probably they are not very usual. The taxpayer is a senior design architect in the Public Works Department of the State of Western Australia, a Department which he joined in 1926. In 1936 he went to England to further his knowledge and he remained abroad for four years working and studying in Europe and America. He had qualified as an architect in 1932. Apparently the taxpayer remained very interested in his profession but over many years was able to follow the developments of architecture abroad only by literature, periodical and otherwise. He was aware that in 1956 he would be entitled to long service leave and in order to increase the period of his possible absence from duty he accumulated his annual leave for four years. He had determined to devote himself during his leave to the study of architecture abroad. He corresponded with architects and journals abroad and carefully planned an itinerary for architectural inspection and study. He says that the plan concentrated on good architecture, even if his work in the Department largely concerned hospitals, schools, public buildings, offices and the like. Owing to the work he was doing it became necessary to postpone his departure for some eighteen months and in the result he left Perth on 22nd April 1957 for England. He returned to duty on 30th January 1958. For some time before his departure he had been at work designing a building for the Engineering School at the University of Perth. When the taxpayer applied for his leave and explained his purpose and the plans he had made, the Principal Architect of the Department for Works said that he would like him to include a visit to South America to see the modern architectural developments there, particularly features such as sun screening which seemed to have a significance for Western Australia. He was to look at engineering buildings. Through the Premier on behalf of the Government this extension of his plans was arranged and to meet the additional costs the Government made a contribution to his expenses."
And then at pp. 65-66:
"It was admitted on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxation that all the taxpayer's activities abroad were devoted to architecture and its study. He kept a written record of what he did and of the buildings he visited and studied. It is clear that he covered a great deal of architectural ground, that he concentrated upon it for seven days a week throughout his tour and that he made voluminous notes, took numbers of photographs and made many sketches and wrote up reports and records. In short there can be no question that all his available time was devoted to the advancement of his knowledge of architecture and the development of his architectural equipment, outlook and skill. If the point be whether the money claimed as a deduction were laid out for the improvement of his capacity to do the work for which he is paid, there could be no doubt that the whole expenditure was directed to that purpose."
"He was a member of the Design Section of the Architectural Division of the Public Works Department. He was one of three Senior Design Architects and of these three he stood highest in seniority. Above him in the Design Section was the Principal Assistant. Departmentally there stood above these the Assistant Principal Architect and the Principal Architect. The latter was at that time to retire within a year. As to the taxpayer's salary he was then at the maximum of the range which his grade or classification allowed. It would be by promotion only that he would go into a range of higher salary. If a vacancy
ATC 359
occurred in any of the offices above him and it was thought expedient to fill it by the promotion of an officer, the appointment would be made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commissioner who in making it would have regard to the relative efficiency or, if two or more officers were of equal efficiency, to the relative seniority of the officers: see s. 34 of the Public Service Act, 1904-1956 (W.A.). Moreover an officer eligible for promotion may appeal on the ground of superior efficiency against the promotion of someone else to an office to which he aspires: efficiency for that purpose includes special qualifications and aptitude for the discharge of the duties of the office: see s. 4 and s. 14 of the Government Employees' (Promotions Appeal Board) Act, 1945 (W.A.). In the course of the taxpayer's evidence given before the Board of Review and used in this Court, he was asked whether he believed his period abroad would better fit him for promotion in the future. He answered `I hope so. That was the whole point of the trip. I mean, this is purely from my side of it. The reason why I did it was that the Principal Architect was due to retire at the end of the year and there were two people senior to me, in seniority, and so the purpose of my trip was to gain the extra knowledge to fit myself to perhaps get possible promotion over them'."
(As to the prospects of promotion, it is reasonable to infer from the absence of reference to success in that endeavour in the judgments of their Honours and in the reasons of the Board of Review - published 19 February 1960 (Case K70
(1959) 10 T.B.R.D. 370) - that he was unsuccessful. It is also reasonable to assume from an absence of reference to any travelling companion and to the finding that he devoted "all his available time" to his professional pursuits, that he travelled alone.)
13. All members of the Court assented to the proposition of Dixon C.J. (at p. 64) that:
"... in the end the decision often will depend on the facts of the given case."
Having considered the facts outlined above, their Honours were unanimously of opinion that Finn had satisfied the requirements of sec. 51 and was entitled to the deduction sought, but they expressed reasons leading to that conclusion in somewhat different terms.
14. The learned Chief Justice alone dealt with the facts and from his analysis concluded at pp. 67-68:
"From the facts that have been stated above three or four conclusions may be drawn which perhaps may be considered to govern the question whether the expenditure was incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income. In the first place it seems indisputable that the increased knowledge the taxpayer sought and obtained of his subject and the closer and more realistic acquaintance he secured of modern developments in design and construction made his advancement in the service more certain, and that in respect of promotion to a higher grade these things might prove decisive. This was put clearly by the Principal Architect, though in a letter written ex post facto, `I understand from you that the Commissioner now desires to know whether the experience obtained and the large amount of data collected will result in an increase in your income. To me, it is obvious that this must increase your professional efficiency, and hence your value to this Department, and must materially assist your future advancement to a higher position in the Department with consequent increase in income.' In the second place, so far as motive or purpose is material, advancement in grade and salary formed a real and substantial element in the combination of motives which led to his going abroad. In the third place it is apparent that the heads of his Department, and indeed the Government itself, treated the use which he made of his long service and other leave to study architecture, increase his professional knowledge and study modern trends, as a matter not only of distinct advantage to his work for the State but of real importance in at least one project in hand. In the fourth place it was all done while he was in the employment of the Government, earning his salary and acting in accordance with the conditions of his service. He was in fact complying with the desires, and so far as going to South America was concerned, with the actual request of the Government. His journey abroad and what he did while in Europe, as well as in South America in the following year of income, was therefore in a correct
ATC 360
sense incidental to his employment and most relevant to it."
His Honour then proceeded to express his conclusion. He said (at p. 68):
"When the foregoing elements are considered in conjunction, they do seem to form a firm foundation for the conclusion that the expenditure was in truth incurred in gaining or producing assessable income."
15. The other judges agreed with the reasons of the learned Chief Justice. Kitto J. said at p. 69:
"I am of the same opinion...;"
and Windeyer J. commenced his brief reasons with the words at p.70:
"I also agree. Each case of this sort must depend on its own facts. The facts and considerations relevant in this case appear fully in the judgment of the Chief Justice."
16. In expressing his reasons for decision, Dixon C.J. was least expansive of judges. He said (at p. 64):
"It will be seen that the question involved in the case is of an important description. For it is indeed important that officers and employees engaged at a salary in the exercise of a skilled profession should not be in a worse position in respect of the costs of better equipping or qualifying themselves in point of knowledge and skill than are those exercising the same profession as a calling remunerated in fees paid by clients or by the members of the public who, under whatever style, enlist their services. But as the legislation stands such cases cannot, unfortunately, be determined by any very broad proposition of law. For the issue must be whether the expenditure was incurred in gaining or producing the assessable income and, although the meaning and application of this phrase have been elucidated judicially, and perhaps may be further so elucidated, in the end the decision often will depend on the facts of the given case."
Then, having analysed the facts and having identified four elements, he concluded at p. 68 that:
"When the foregoing elements are considered in conjunction, they do seem to form a firm foundation for the conclusion that the expenditure was in truth incurred in gaining or producing assessable income."
Accordingly, in his view the claim was established to be allowable. His Honour did not venture any view as to whether the claim might have been allowable had any of the four elements not been established.
17. But Kitto J. and Windeyer J., both respected judges of the High Court, whose views are also entitled to respect, were more expansive in their reasons. Kitto J. said at pp. 69-70:
"I am of the same opinion, and even if the relevance of the expenditure to the respondent's prospects of promotion were to be put on one side I should consider that enough would remain in the facts of the case to entitle him to the deduction he has claimed. His assessable income consisted of or included a salary which was payable from time to time in virtue of his holding the office of a senior design architect in the Public Works Department of Western Australia. It is, I think, a correct application of the terminology of s. 51 to say that he was engaged in `gaining' that salary whenever and so long as he acted in the fulfilment of his office; for the salary payable was his remuneration for everything comprised in or incidental to his service.
The respondent incurred the expenditure during a period of leave, and in carrying out activities beyond any which had been or could lawfully have been specifically required of him by the Government. But it was nevertheless in my opinion incidentally to the proper execution of his office and not otherwise that he engaged in those activities. For the office was of a kind which by its nature made incumbent upon the occupant much more than the performance of set duties at set times. Its professional status implied an obligation of progressive acquaintance with a living and developing art. It was therefore, I think, plainly incidental to the office that the respondent should avail himself of such opportunities as might arise to add, in the interests of the State even if also in his own interests, to his knowledge and understanding of architectural achievements and trends overseas, both in design and in construction, and of endeavours made and being made to
ATC 361
solve architectural problems such as might from time to time confront his Government.In my judgment the respondent, in making the investigations and studies which he pursued during his period of leave, was acting within the scope of his office, and therefore in the gaining of his salary. I would hold that the expenditure which he incurred in the process was an allowable deduction under s. 51 in the assessment of his income tax."
Windeyer J. said at p. 70:
"Generally speaking, it seems to me, a taxpayer who gains income by the exercise of his skill in some profession or calling and who incurs expenses in maintaining or increasing his learning, knowledge, experience and ability in that profession or calling necessarily incurs those expenses in carrying on his profession or calling. Whether he be paid fees by different persons seeking his skilled services from time to time, or be paid a regular salary by one person employing him to exercise his skill, matters not in my opinion. Moreover, it would surely be wrong to assume that the Crown is so indifferent to the professional attainments of those whom it employs that their rights and prospects in its service are not affected by the true measure of those attainments. That was not so in this case. Outgoings incurred for the genuine purpose of acquiring or maintaining knowledge and skill in a vocation do not become an outgoing `of a private nature' simply because the taxpayer got pleasure and satisfaction in increasing his knowledge and attainments."
18. I do not understand any of the judges to have proposed that whenever an architect, or other professional person or other person who gains income by the exercise of skills in some profession or calling, travels and in travelling in some degree improves his acquaintance with modern developments in his field, thereby maintaining or increasing his learning, knowledge, experience and ability, that the requirements from sec. 51 are automatically met. In my view, had the circumstances of Finn's employment and his itinerary been as they were, but his activities in the course of the journey had differed, the appropriate conclusion from facts so found might well have been that he was simply "on holiday".
19. What then is the appropriate conclusion in relation to this particular undertaking for this particular applicant? In my view, it is a conclusion to be reached as an exercise of judgment after weighing the entirety of the evidence. It may even be that an apportionment is appropriate. If it is determined that the tour happened to serve indifferently two distinct objectives - the one recreational and private; and the other income-related - a due proportion of the expense may be deductible.
20. I take into account the following: A and his wife are persons with extensive experience of travel, frequently travelling overseas together and doing so during periods of annual recreation leave. They most frequently travelled to Third World countries, quite often being countries with an appeal to tourists who wish to avoid journeying from Australia to other western urbanised and industrial societies, commonly with longer historical and stronger cultural dimensions. That they so travel to such Third World countries is at least because those countries have a special professional interest for the applicant. It may be that they have as much interest for his wife. At least they are not of so little interest to her as to dissuade her from travelling and, no doubt, the extensive experience she has gained from her journeys has made her a more understanding and wiser person. On this occasion they travelled to the Republic of China.
21. They could not plan their itinerary or choose their contacts and they were not free to move or to observe or to associate with others at their will, but at that time they did as much as it was possible to do. They travelled in a party with no stronger common interest than a desire to tour China and nothing in the manner of the applicant's travel or undertakings on the tour would have distinguished him from any other intelligent and interested person in the party.
22. What is said to especially qualify the applicant for the deduction he seeks are the circumstances that he is an academic, a teacher in a tertiary institution; that he received a small contribution from his employer towards the cost of his travel ($210) - over and above any "leave-loading" to which he was entitled; that he had some responsibility in contributing to the formulation of curricula which form some part of courses accredited nationally; that he had substantial responsibilities in the teaching
ATC 362
of his students, who were predominantly future school teachers; and that as a teacher he had a responsibility, in common with all professionals and all persons who aspire to serve the community well, to strive for excellence. His evidence also proposes that his undertaking was prompted by a concern to improve his prospects of advancement in the service of the college and, failing that, to at least avert retrenchment.23. On the other hand, he is not a member of a university academic community in which by the conditions of his service he has an obligation to engage in research. His employment is with a college of advanced education and, although such colleges now mark the achievements of their students by awards of degrees or diplomas, in terms comparable to that of the universities, I am not persuaded that - as a general rule - it is proper to consider that the undertakings of the colleges are of the same standard as those of the universities or that their courses are as rigorous intellectually. The applicant's role was directed to increasing the learning and understanding of his pupils, particularly as future teachers in fields in which they may later be called on to teach. In that way his responsibility was to enlarge their minds so that in time they might open and enlarge the minds of their pupils. His project was not undertaken as part of any study leave program sponsored by the college and other academic institutions whereby members of academic staff are encouraged to undertake programs of study for the sake of their own intellectual development and the advancement of their institution. He, with his wife, journeyed during a period of recreational leave.
24. In light of those considerations and, bearing in mind that it must be possible for this applicant - no less than his wife and others who travelled on the journey - to travel on such a tour for recreational purposes, how is the tour to be characterised? Was it a tour in which he was so committed to the development of learning in the field of his income-earning activities to be perceived as an income-related activity with only incidental recreation value? Or, was it an undertaking of essentially recreational character with only incidental relevance to his income-earning activities? How is it to be distinguished from the case of a schoolteacher who undertakes university studies, and of whom it was said that the circumstance "that a teacher who has pursued university studies is likely to be a better teacher than if he had not done so and is therefore more likely to obtain promotion within the department" is only a general consideration not enough to make the expenses deductible? (cf.
F.C. of T. v. Hatchett 71 ATC 4184 at p. 4187). Or was it something of each, such that there should be an apportionment on the basis that the expenditure served both private recreational purposes and income-related purposes?
25. The decision to be made calls for a finding of fact. That requires that there be an exercise of judgment in assessing the testimony presented and in considering the issue in the light of decided cases. Although it is desirable to bear in mind findings in other cases which might be thought to have similarities and therefore be thought to be binding precedent by those whose causes seem to be favoured, they are not. The fact that a particular architect (as in Finn); or a particular engineer (as in
Griffin v. F.C. of T. 86 ATC 4838); or an academic economist from a college of advanced education who travelled through China as a member of a party of economists at the suggestion of one of Australia's leading university economists (an unreported decision of the No. 1 Taxation Board of Review in 1985) were successful in their claims to deduction does not mean that all architects, or all engineers, or all academic economists will be so entitled when they seek deductions in superficially similar circumstances.
26. Having weighed the considerations for and against, I have first concluded that if it was a matter of characterising the expenditure as either being expenditure incurred in the course of earning assessable income or as being recreational in nature and therefore private, I would have determined that it was recreational and private. I would not wholly allow the deduction claimed.
27. That raises the question whether there should be some apportionment. Apportionment also calls for a finding of fact to be made (cf.
Ronpibon Tin N.L. and Tongkah Compound N.L. v. F.C. of T. (1949) 78 C.L.R. 47 at p. 60). Many circumstances exist in which a journey is given over to a mix of purposes - some related to the derivation of income and some private. Sometimes it can be seen that identifiable periods of time are given over predominantly to one purpose rather than the
ATC 363
other: for example a period of research in an Italian university may be followed by a skiing holiday in Switzerland. On other occasions the revenue-related activities may be interspersed spasmodically throughout the journey: a journey which may be predominantly recreational in character.28. Then again there may be circumstances in which the revenue-related purpose or the recreational activity may be so minor on a time scale and merely so peripheral to the principal purpose of and activities on the trip as to be insufficient to justify an apportionment. The barrister vacationing in England who visits the Royal Courts of Justice one afternoon probably does not thereby covert even part of his journey to an activity in the course of earning his assessable income. Conversely, however, a barrister who might once have travelled to London to appear before the Privy Council did not cause the character of his travelling as an income-earning expense to change simply because one evening he might have attended the Royal Ballet.
29. Recognising those considerations I have addressed the question whether in the circumstances of this case as established in the evidence before me there should be some apportionment. As there is no basis in the evidence for founding an apportionment in a time factor, it therefore becomes a question as to whether there were aspects of the tour or particular events, activities or incidents within it which warrant an apportionment. I do not think so.
30. I conclude that the journey was essentially recreational in character: an occasion for broadening the knowledge and understanding of the applicant in ways personally satisfying to him - as they probably were for his wife. As is the case of many persons who have good fortune to find personal satisfaction in their work, he found his recreational satisfactions in a field of endeavour which was also related in some ways to the field of activity in which he carried out his principal income-earning activities. The fact that he has toured, albeit in a limited way, countries which are the subject of study in courses he lectures in contemporary Third World History is quite likely to make him a better teacher than he otherwise would have been but in my view in the circumstances of this case that general consideration is not sufficient to make the expenses deductible (cf. Hatchett - ante).
31. I would affirm the determination of the Commissioner upon the objection.
This information is provided by CCH Australia Limited Link opens in new window. View the disclaimer and notice of copyright.