Research only one of the following Australian cases involving a Taxation issue: 1. Weeks v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (25 January XXXXXXXXXXJanuary 2. Sanctuary Lakes Pty Ltd v. Federal...

1
Running Header: Kael v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation

Case: Kael v. Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2017] AATA 38 (20 January 2017)
Summary
1. The applicant of the case claimed the deductions for the overtime meal expenses which
he was not entitled for the same, because overtime meal allowance was not paid under an
award. The allowance is notional apportionment of the part of gross salary for the
overtime meal expenses of the applicant which being carved out of gross salary of the
applicant.
2. The statement of the applicant that he is allowed to deduction in tax returns was false and
thus misleading and he failed in taking the reasonable care in complying taxation law. I
agree to the points of Commissioner that there should be imposition of administrative
penalty on applicant, at 25% rate of tax shortfall amount and also penalty should not be
emitted.
Background
3. Relevant Income years under review are 2012 and 2013. Mr. Seppo Kael, the applicant
was employed by the Nordic Building Group Pty Ltd (Nordic) during relevant income
years lodged the income tax return for year 2012 and 2013 using registered tax agent
named Mr. David McNeice. On the dates 21 December, 2012 and 8 November, 2013,
espectively, the Commissioner of tax issued the notice of the assessment for each
elevant income year to the applicant.
4. On the 17 Fe
uary 2014, Commissioner wrote to the applicant, advising him that for the
elevant income years his return is selected for the purpose of the audit and audit would
e conducted for the deductions claimed for travel expenses related to the work for 2013
2
Kael v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation

and for other of the work-related expenses (which includes overtime meal expenses by
applicant) for each year under consideration.
5. During course of audit, Mr. Kael decreased deduction claimed by him for the travel
expenses related to the work for 2013 and increased claimed deduction for the other
work-related expenses.
6. Commissioner on December 8, 2014wrote to the Mr. Kael, advising him outcome of
audit of reducing each of three deduction claims. Commissioner on December 22, 2014
for each relevant year issued notice of the amended assessment and for shortfall penalty
(base penalty 25% of shortfall amount) for year 2012. After that, an objection was lodged
y Mr. Kael against each of relevant three notices on Fe
uary 19, 2015.
7. The Commissioner on September 18, 2015, issued a notice regarding the assessment of
the shortfall penalty (again base penalty 25% of shortfall amount) for income year 2013.
For which Mr. Kael lodged an obligation on November 4.
8. Commissioner on 9 November 2015 disallowed each of the four objections of Mr. Kael.
9. On January 18 2016, Mr. Kael, an applicant applied to tribunal, under the sect 14ZZ of
Taxation Administration Act, 1953 (TA Act) for the review of decisions.
Decisions under review
10. On November 9, 2015, the Commissioner gave decision disallowing the objections of
Mr. Kael’s against notice of the amended assessment and the notice of the assessment of
the shortfall penalty.
Issues
11. Mr. Kael changed amount of deduction claims many times as the audit began and issues
still in the dispute between the Mr. Kael and Commissioner are as follows:
3
Kael v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation

 What amount Mr. Kael can claim as deduction for each relevant income years regarding
overtime meal expenses, if any?
 Was the...