Self education expense threshold to be removed

Grahame Allen • Sep 29, 2021

With the introduction of a recent Bill, the government is finally following through on its promise to remove the $250 non-deductible threshold for self-education expenses. While self-education expenses are generally deductible if there is a sufficient connection with the taxpayer's income producing activities, the amount of deduction is currently limited by s 82A of the ITAA so that only the excess over $250 may be deductible. This $250 non-deductible threshold has a long history, it was first introduced in 1975 alongside a concessional tax rebate of $250 for expenditure on self-education. In effect, the non-deductible threshold was designed to ensure that taxpayers do not claim both the tax rebate and get a tax deduction for the same set of education expenses. However, the concessional rebate was repealed in 1985, but the non-deductible threshold illogically remained, and it has only taken the government 36 years to get around to removing it. The non-deductible threshold currently applies to expenses of self-education necessarily incurred by an individual for or in connection with an organised course of education provided by a school, college or university, on a full or part time basis. Some expenses that are not considered to be generally deductible may still be expenses of self-education and may reduce the non-deductible threshold. For example, childcare costs related to attending self-education activities are not generally deductible as they are considered to be private or domestic, but may reduce the non-deductible threshold up to the $250 limit. Following the removal of the non-deductible threshold, individuals can continue to claim self education expenses if the expense is incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, the expense is not private, domestic or capital in nature, and the deduction is not prevented by legislation. Therefore, it is expected that the current deductibility standards will continue to apply. For example, expenses incurred in maintaining or improving a taxpayer's skills and knowledge in their present occupation should be deductible, particularly if they are likely to lead to a pay increase, but childcare costs can no longer be claimed. Similarly, self education expenses incurred before commencing an occupation or to obtain a new occupation will likely remain non-deductible. The repeal of $250 non-deductible threshold will also not affect the types of self-education expenses that are deductible. For example, the costs of textbooks, stationery, and professional journals will still be deductible, while certain student contributions and payments to reduce HELP, financial supplement and other higher education debts will remain non-deductible. For taxpayers claiming self-education expenses after the removal of the non-deductible threshold, records of deductible self-education expenses will still need to be kept but records no longer need to be kept for any non-deductible self education expenses that was used to offset the non-deductible threshold. Remember, the amendment is not yet law, therefore, the current non-deductible threshold will continue apply until the Bill passes Parliament and receives Royal Assent.

Navigating complexities of crypto investments: SMSFs

By Grahame Allen • 03 May, 2024
The digital currency landscape continues to be treacherous terrain for Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) trustees, with a growing number of reports indicating significant losses due to a variety of factors, including scams, theft, and collapsed trading platforms. As the allure of high returns from crypto investments tempts many, the ATO is emphasizing the need for increased vigilance and education to safeguard superannuation benefits. The ATO has identified several causes of crypto investment losses: Trustees are being duped by fraudulent crypto exchanges, which promise high returns but are designed to siphon off investors' funds. Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting crypto accounts, hacking into them to steal valuable cryptocurrencies. A number of crypto trading platforms, particularly those based overseas, have collapsed, leaving investors with significant losses. Some trustees find themselves permanently locked out of their crypto accounts due to forgotten passwords, losing access to their investments. Scammers impersonating ATO officials are tricking individuals into revealing wallet details under the guise of investigating tax evasion, leading to losses. The ATO is urging trustees to educate themselves on the potential pitfalls of crypto investing. Resources such as the ACCC's Scamwatch and ASIC's MoneySmart provide valuable information on recognising and avoiding scams. Moreover, the ATO highlights that many crypto assets are not classified as financial products, meaning that the platforms facilitating their trade often lack regulation. This increases the risk of loss without recourse. For those SMSF trustees faced with the loss of a digital wallet, the first step is to determine whether the loss is simply one of lost access or if there is loss of evidence of ownership. In either case, meticulous record-keeping is the key to navigating the situation. The ATO allows for the claim of a capital loss if trustees lose their crypto private key or if their cryptocurrency is stolen. However, to substantiate such a claim, trustees must provide comprehensive evidence, including the date of acquisition and loss of the private key, the associated wallet address, the cost to acquire the lost or stolen cryptocurrency, and the amount present in the wallet at the time of loss. Additionally, proof that the wallet was under the trustee’s control, such as transactions linked to their identity or hardware that stores the wallet, is essential. It is important to note that while some may still consider cryptocurrency to be private and anonymous, and may baulk at reporting gains made, the reality is much different. The ATO has the ability to track cryptocurrency transactions through electronic trails, in particular where it intersects with the real word. In addition, through data matching protocols, the ATO requires cryptocurrency exchanges to furnish them with information on transactions, making it possible to trace and tax crypto trades. Trustees are therefore encouraged to report all transactions. For SMSFs that run businesses and accept cryptocurrency as payment, the approach to accounting is akin to dealing with any other asset, the value of the cryptocurrency needs to be recorded in Australian dollars as a part of the business’ ordinary income. In addition, where business items are purchased using crypto, including trading stock, a deduction is allowed based on the market value of the item acquired. SMSFs that run businesses should also be aware that there may be GST issues with transacting in crypto.

Trust reporting changes from 1 July 2024

By Grahame Allen • 26 Apr, 2024
Changes to simplify reporting for trustees and beneficiaries are commencing from 1 July 2024 as a part of the Modernisation of Trust Administration Systems (MTAS) project. From that date, labels in the statement of distribution, which is a part of the trust tax return, will be modified, a new schedule will be introduced for all trust beneficiary types, and new data validations will be added. Looking at each of these changes in depth, from the 2023-24 income year and onward, four new capital gains tax (CGT) labels have been added into the trust tax return statement of distribution. These changes will enhance the ability of trustees to appropriately notify beneficiaries of their entitlement to income and support the calculation of the CGT amount in individual tax returns. The ATO recommends that all beneficiaries obtain copies of the trust statement of distribution as it relates to their individual entitlements. This will allow beneficiaries to include the correct information in the new trust income schedule. The trust income schedule instructions will demonstrate how the information on the tax statement provided should be reported on the trust income schedule. This also includes trust income from a managed fund. It should be noted that beneficiaries will still need to complete existing trust income labels in beneficiary income tax returns as this new trust income schedule will not replace any existing trust income labels. Individual beneficiaries who lodge via MyTax will receive prompts about the additional reporting of trust income. In addition to these reporting changes, the ATO has reminded trustees that where beneficiaries’ entitlements reflected in trust resolutions are subsequently changed by either arguing the resolution as invalid, defective or made at a different time, it should be notified as an affected party where the change triggers tax consequences. For context, to ensure that beneficiaries are presently entitled to trust income, discretionary trusts are usually required to make a resolution by 30 June of any specific income year. For those specifically entitled to a capital gain, trustees of discretionary trusts must make a resolution in respect of that capital gain by 31 August following the income year in which the capital gain is made. According to the ATO, high-risk behaviours by trustees can include altering trust resolutions after tax returns are lodged, failing to inform the ATO of errors in trust deeds or their administration, and making decisions that affect the tax liabilities of a trust, such as early vesting, without notifying the ATO. These actions can lead to disputes over entitlements, amended assessments, and the potential for tax fraud or evasion charges if the issues are not promptly and transparently addressed with the ATO. The ATO notes that it is critical for trustees of trusts to maintain open and honest communication with the ATO, as failure to do so may lead to serious consequences, including the possibility of amended tax assessments for fraud or evasion (which are not limited by the standard four-year review period) and the imposition of significant penalties. The need for trustees to promptly advise the ATO of any mistakes in the trust deed or in the administration of the trust to prevent legal and financial complications cannot be overstated.

Old ATO debts: IGTO weighs in

By Grahame Allen • 19 Apr, 2024
In response to the ATO's recent actions on re-activating or off-setting old debts, the Commonwealth Ombudsman/ACT Ombudsman, and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO) have jointly issued new guidelines aimed at improving how Australians are notified about government debts. The publication outlines principles designed to ensure that the process of debt notification is handled with transparency, clarity and sensitivity towards impacted individuals. Mr Iain Anderson, serving as both Commonwealth Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman, together with Ms. Karen Payne, Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman, emphasized the importance of government agencies adopting a compassionate and principled approach when dealing with debt notification. "While the law may require agencies to take certain actions, it is crucial that these actions are taken in a manner that minimizes distress," they stated. The guidelines propose five key principles for the ATO and other government departments to consider when conducting programs: Transparency and Accountability - agencies should communicate clearly why the debt has arisen, fostering trust and confidence in the process. Clarity on the Debt's Origin - individuals should understand the source and nature of the debt, tailored to the recipient's circumstances. Clear Pathways for Review - information on how to request a review of the debt, apply for waivers, and arrange repayments should be readily accessible, ensuring individuals understand their rights and options. Accessible Support - contacts for further assistance must be provided, acknowledging that people may have additional questions or need personalized support. Commitment to Improvement - the process of debt recovery should be viewed as an opportunity to learn and enhance future practices based on oversight recommendations and past experiences. Also noted was the significance of reflecting on past interactions and the recommendations from oversight bodies to continually elevate how agencies engage with the community regarding sensitive matters such as debt recovery. Taxpayers who have an unresolved complaint or dispute with the ATO are able to lodge a dispute with the IGTO to receive independent assurance. IGTO will conduct an independent investigation of the actions and decisions that are subject of the dispute and can help taxpayers better understand the actions taken by the ATO and/or independently verify whether shortcomings exist in ATO’s action or decision which should be rectified, as well as identifying other options taxpayers may have to resolve their concerns. For example, in one case study, the IGTO assisted a taxpayer to verify whether the full amount of general interest charge had been remitted on their tax debts. In another, after a taxpayer’s original request for the Commissioner to exercise his discretion to advance their refund instead of offsetting against their tax debt due to imminent risk of homelessness was denied, the taxpayer lodged a dispute with the IGTO. Following urgent discussions between the IGTO and senior ATO officers, the ATO reversed their decision, and the taxpayer received his refund. The IGTO can also intervene in cases where the ATO has used family assistance payments to offset tax debts. According to another one of IGTO’s case studies, the ATO used a Centrelink Family Assistance (CFA) payment to offset a tax debt that a taxpayer had. At the time, the taxpayer was unemployed and supported two minors along with an ageing parent and relied on the payment. After IGTO intervention, the ATO agreed to refund the offset recognising it was not appropriate to pursue debt collection given the circumstances. Taxpayers interested in lodging a dispute with the IGTO should note that they must have first attempted to resolve the complaint directly with the ATO unless special circumstances exist. Those that remain unsatisfied with the ATO response should then lodge a formal complaint with the ATO for review. If taxpayers are still unsatisfied with the outcome of the ATO review, they can then lodge a dispute with the IGTO for an independent investigation either online or via post or phone.
More Posts
Share by: