No one wants to give the tax-man more than the minimum.
eg I read about some guy on whirlpool who "salary packaged" nearly all his pay as "meal entertainment" and then somehow funnelled it out, though that's leaning more towards "tax evasion" than "tax minimisation"..
What Are Some Ways You Have Been "Minimising Tax"?
2real4u on 03/01/2015 - 18:22
Last edited 03/01/2015 - 18:23
Last edited 03/01/2015 - 18:23
Comments
Hi coppie, I'm wondering what occupation you are in to get meal allowances every day u work?
I might add, claiming meal allowance above what you declare as you get in allowance means u need to keep all receipts of what you eat, coz when you claim such a large amount on food, it always raises the eye brow of the tax office.
I read a tax case where professional sports men tried to claim their meals as deductios, due to their pprofession requiring strict diets. This went to high court and found in atos favour that there was legal basis for the claim. Not the same situation as you are in, but just highlighting that claiming food gets looked into more often than other deductions.
I only claim the maximum allowable per meal allowance without requiring a reciept, however to cover my rear i also ensure i pay for a full 3 meals on my CC at least once a year totaling more then each claimed amount if it needs to be used as justification.
Though its not particularly difficult, a sit down meal at a truck stop with a bottle of drink sets you back over 30 bucks these days, so all of that is taken into consideration.
I work in the transport industry, meal/travel/shift allowances are as per our EBA.
lol you're going to need more then 3 receipts in one day if the tax man comes knocking asking about $8k worth of meals. Its clearly not accidental either so if caught you'll be looking at negligent/fraudulent offences
My meal allowances are paid into my wage and recorded on my payslips as such. I can prove not only I received those meal allowances, I can prove that I spent at least that amount on food.
I've been audited before and everything was spot on, infact they pointed out I under claimed my REA fees for that FY
Actually he isn't.
Its one of the few areas where you dont require receipts and every time I complete a return with these sort of deductions I alwys double check to ensure they have not changed the tax rulings associated with truckers meal allowances. (As I think the rules are insane)
EVERYONE PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE DEDUCTIONS ARE SPECIFIC TO TRUCKERS AND YOU WILL GET INTO SERIOUS TROUBLE IF YOU TRY CLAIMING THEM FOR YOUR OWN PAYG JOB!
From the ATO site:
You can claim a deduction for the full amount of your meal and incidental expenses without keeping all your records if:
you receive a travel allowance that could reasonably be expected to cover your meals and expenses incidental to the travel (a token amount you receive as a travel allowance is not accepted as reasonably covering such costs), and
your meal and incidental expenses are equal to or less than the reasonable allowanceExternal Link amount.
EVERYONE PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE DEDUCTIONS ARE SPECIFIC TO TRUCKERS AND YOU WILL GET INTO SERIOUS TROUBLE IF YOU TRY CLAIMING THEM FOR YOUR OWN PAYG JOB!
From the ATO site relating to TRUCKERS deductions specifically: https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/In-…
You can claim a deduction for the full amount of your meal and incidental expenses without keeping all your records if:
you receive a travel allowance that could reasonably be expected to cover your meals and expenses incidental to the travel (a token amount you receive as a travel allowance is not accepted as reasonably covering such costs), and
your meal and incidental expenses are equal to or less than the reasonable allowanceExternal Link amount.
Anyone who is paid an overtime meal, travel allowance etc separately from their normal wages can claim a deduction for meals. The daily amounts that can be claimed by truckers are a lot higher.
I'd reckon Copie is actually coming out second best with a $11 per meal allowance. The tax benefit from the deduction would be about $7, so unless he's getting away with spending $18 odd per meal then he's forking out his own money to travel for work. Even if he's stingy and eats happy meals all the time, he's still not going to make that much money from this even over a year.
In comparison I can't claim deductions for overtime meals or meals on travel, but my company reimburses every last $ spent. I'll take reimbursement over allowances any day of the week.
You are correct about others being able to claim meal allowances but I was pointing out that these deductions specifically relate to truckers as the OP didn't make that clear.
I started replying to many points raised in this thread as a good portion is poor advice given from people who have little understanding of tax law. I stopped though as i simply dont have the time to post corrections for all of it.
There's a good risk people read the first comments and start filling in their own etax forms with similar deductions.
Just pointing out that you should only be claiming what was actually spent (on overtime meals and travel expenses), not automatically claim the maximum rate.
You can claim the maximum allowable without repercussion. You just need to prove that you spend that much on food (which is why i keep a reciept for a single meal once a year) Just like laundry etc, you claim the maximum allowable without reciepts, doesnt mean you spent that much.
If you are spending the maximum amount as a minimum then no problem. However I don't think they will accept receipts from 1 day of the year to represent your spending habits for the entire financial year. I'd go with 3 months or 12 weeks as a minimum. It's the same period used for logbooks and diaries which are used to substantiate other claims for deductions.
If you're spending less than the allowable rate then, as I mentioned above, you should only be claiming a deduction for what was actually spent. What happens in practice though is a different story.
Disclaimer: This advice is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice.
If you clock up a lot of medical expenses keep all those receipts togetrher, including pharmacy receipts. After you hit about $1000 in a year, the rest is deductible (can't remember the exact figure).
I think its $2000 now.
You'll only be able to claim it in the 2014 financial year if you had claimed the net medical tax offset in 2013. Think the plan is to scrap it from 2015 financial year.
Correct. Labor had phased this out towards the end of their term according to my accountant.
I was speaking with my tax accountant.
you can claim the last 2 years of medical expenses only.
you should claim both at the same time as you can't claim last years and then say "I'll do the previous year later" as once you do last year it rules out the previous year.
i had big medical bills in 2014 (ACL knee surgury). My private health does not cover hospital, and where the injury happened had insurance (basketball comp) but their policy only covered a max of $1200 - this didnt even cover all of my physio let alone the 11k of surgery/hospital/anaesthetist bills.
Im not sure if i claimed a medical tax offset in 2013 - should i call the tax office to double check
Have an appointment with HR Block next week - i have a bad feeling im going to be out of pocket a lot of money :s
Any info/help would be appreciated.
Cheers - Chris
Hey Chris,
You can give them a call and ask if you had claimed it in 2013. If you had above $2,060 in medical bills in 2013 then it wouldn't be a problem. If not, don't need to bother saving receipts for the 2014 financial year tax return since it'll be pointless (other than keeping it for your own record). If your taxable income is 88k or lower, you could potentially be saving ($11,000-$2,162)*20=$1,767 in tax. If it's higher than that you can only get 10% back.
Hope this helps
@neilpatrickharris: Thanks neil - that was a big help. Unfortunately looks like i will be out of pocket :(
This has been phased out as of the year ending 30 June 2014 & in order to claim in 2014 you must have also claimed in 2013.
For those over the preservation age, talk to a financial advisor about TRIS. It's a legal way of sacrificing at the concessional rate into super and at the same time accessing it for an income stream.
Some great tips in here. Thanks all.
As a lawyer and ex-ATO employee, I must say it can be a grey area between aggressive tax planning (generally legal) and tax avoidance (illegal). In fact, the ATO has a division named Aggressive Tax Planning, which means while you might get away with some questionable deductions, it may not be worthwhile, and may cause the ATO to 'have you on their radar', so to speak.
Remember, even if your tax return is prepared by a tax agent, it is your responsibility to justify/document deductions.
In terms of simple deductions, in addition to what is said above, the per km deduction for vehicle expenses (if incurred in income production eg. travel between two jobs [not travel from home to work unless bulky equipment etc]) if often a lucrative deduction.
If you are talking about higher rates of income, then a discretionary trust (particularly with family members as beneficiaries) is often the best way to distribute income to create large tax advantages.
However, the biggest factor generally on whether you can claim large deductions or not is generally one you can't change - whether you are PAYG (salary earner) or not (eg. contractor/small business owner).
As an aside, That gentleman who salary packaged almost all his income as 'meal entertainment' may have worked in the non-profit sector, which has much more generous salary sacrificing arrangements.
I shouldn't spruik for work here, but please see a professional if you want further information!
Disclaimer: This advice is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice.I assume those family members can't be children under 18? I believe their tax rate is very high after a certain threshold to discourage this kind of tax minimisation.
That's right. Different rules for minors with regards to 'unearned income'.
Some good ideas here…keep them coming…As Kerry Packer once said
"Of course I am minimising my tax, and if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read… because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."I agree 100% with packer.
On the flip side:
"In the past, I have been proud to pay a lot of tax - even if more than that required by law - because I have received great satisfaction from knowing that I'm paying for some of the great things we have in Australia" – Dick SmithI do not believe him for a second. He is just a showman telling everyone how good he is and how good we should all be by buying his stuff, and some people believe him. You do not get rich without "pushing the envelope"
Hmm news to me, never thought Australia had a Donald Trump and the last showman type entrepreneur I'd think of would be DS. I doubt the non-profit/charity food biz (his own label sauce, jams, vegemite etc) is just done for show.
He cares about Australia. He advocates debate on overpopulation etc.
Curious, how has Dick Smith gotten rich by pushing the envelope. Last I checked he made his money selling his stake in DSE.
You really think he pays more tax than required by law? Tells accountant "Just throw an extra 100k onto that cheque for the ATO. If they refund it in my integrated client account, tell 'em to keep it for the orphans'.
Legal offshore entities.
Are you speaking from experience?
Foreign income must be declared on a tax return.
Foreign income must be declared on a tax return.
Obviously it's a complicated area, however to simplify: the offshore vehicle is not domiciled in Australia and therefore does not even lodge an Australian tax return. Then the cash withdrawals you make back to you own personal bank account (as an Australian taxpayer) are not deemed taxable income because they came from an exempt country and therefore not reported on your personal Australian tax return.
I don't do it myself but I have a handful of friends offshoring their consulting fees (not PAYG salary earners) and they pay an accountant $3,500 every year to handle the paperwork/returns for them. They pay $0 tax. I'm not condoning it morally, but legally they are doing it.
https://www.ato.gov.au/Tax-professionals/Prepare-and-lodge/T…
Generally, taxpayers must declare all income they received from foreign sources in their tax return.
Foreign income includes:
business income
foreign employment income
most pensions and annuities
bank interest
dividends
royalties
rent
capital gains
personal services income.if they declare their domicile as in a foreign country and have a permanent place of abode they are required to lodge a return in that country. However if the ATO believes the person hasn't moved their domicile, and they have a good track record of proving this, they will be required to pay tax on every cent
Personally, I doubt this is "legal" tax-wise. This sounds more like they are not declaring the income at all so they don't have to pay tax on it, and by not declaring it, don't have to pay tax on it. In a sense, its "hiding" the income, and more tax-evasion than tax-minimisation.
@Kenb0: its perfectly legal if you pay tax where your domicile is. But clearly this persons friends don't do that
taxpayers must declare all income they received
As I understand it they are not "earning income" when they repatriate funds back to their Australian bank account and therefore no income needs to be declared in their personal Australian tax return.
@Kenb0: This is completely legal if done properly. You have to prove at times that the foreign domiciled entity is a fully functioning business and not for the sole purpose of minimising tax.
its perfectly legal if you pay tax where your domicile is. But clearly this persons friends don't do that
The country that their offshore vehicles are domiciled in are tax-havens with no income tax on consulting income. It's a loophole being exploited and the ATO has been trying to shut down this for decades. Yet to no avail - a bit like hybrid trusts I guess.
I own a legal offshore entity but reside in Australia. I have to pay tax in the foreign country AND in Australia. However I can claim a foreign income tax offset.
I have to pay tax in the foreign country AND in Australia. However I can claim a foreign income tax offset.
That's because your foreign company has a double-tax treaty with Australia. I'm guessing it's not Bermuda…
@PBG, whats the downside? WIll they still be able to get a bank loan if their Notice of Assessment shows $0 . Ie= The bank deems them as unemployed? Or is there a trick?
Be part of a Family Trust and share the gains to members who currently aren't working/pay tax.
It's not just for the wealthy.
As has been said earlier - superannuation. A great legal way to reduce your tax.
Sometimes I wonder how much interest on my mortgage would be saved if I could just include Super as part of my Offset or if that Super balance can be used to pay my mortgage but that's another discussion.
Negative gearing is another great way.
Be obscenely wealthy (ideally through mining and even better if inherited). Donate money to the government and become friends with them. Then lobby them to change laws so that you pay less or no tax and they rather increase their revenue from the less wealthy.
How does one start a "church" or a cult/scientology? They pay no tax?
https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Fringe-benefits-tax/In-det…
ITS AWESOME but you might end up going to hell instead of jail…. The upside is you wont be alone and will have lots of company….
All the employees of churches do pay income tax just the same as you and I.
Furthermore, Julia Gillard took away tax deductions for donations to religious building funds. But I'm pretty sure that in the USA all donations/tithes paid to churches are tax deductible.
How US churches exploit tax exemption to promote faith-based politics
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/20/us-chur…
The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions in the US: $71,000,000,000
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-…
The only legal way to minimize your tax is to keep all paperwork (inc receipts) and go to a good tax agent as they know all of the ins and outs of the system.
Something I heard a while back and not too sure if it still flies.
If you have a business you can legally employ your own children no matter what age.Claim up to the tax free threshold in wages for your children and then file individual tax return for them.
The cap for minors is $460 odd, for those legally entitled to work obviously they can earn as much as they want however you have to factor in payroll tax. Plus if the parent passes the PSI tests they are required to include the income in their tax returns regardless if they earn that money as a wage
Exactly.
It would be much better to set up a discretionary trust and then you can put that money into the children's pockets without having to lie and pay payroll tax ontop.
The trust is not only legal, but there's more money to be kept in your family's pockets.
It would be much better to set up a discretionary trust and then you can put that money into the children's pockets without having to lie and pay payroll tax ontop.
Not true. Trust income is passive and so is capped at $417 per year before top marginal rate kicks in. If the child is of working-age then a salary is not passive and not capped.
Rupert the scumbag. If you have lawyers and you pay them well, you can do anything.
Thanks everyone for your input, great read!
Here are my few deductions/tax planning ways:
- associate lease to salary sacrifice my car (slightly different to the usual novated leases) - i get a tax deduction + some minor income splitting benefit to the lower paid spouse; wife took a 'loan' from Citibank @ 3.9% to purchase the car from me at market value, which is tax deductible (so closer to 2.7%) and I parked the funds into our mortgage @ 4.9%.
- salary sacrificed laptop (surface pro3 i7)
- home office running expenses (cents/hour)
- professional memberships
- donations
- course fees
- travel to and from uni (I use the non-salary sacrificed car)
I'm not a fan of salary sacrificing into super when i'm not even 30 years old - simply don't trust the govnt not changing the rules too much!
you can only claim a deduction from work to uni, not from home to uni
I know :) But the office I work at 2 days a week is 97km from home; and 92kms uni… so I always make sure I'm in the office those days, driving my non-salary sacrificed car :) and then go to night classes
Heard of the associate lease before but that is interesting that you can get a car loan at 3.9%. I'm guessing it's a special loan just for this kind of 'lease'?
Nope. Its ANY loan/finance (e.g. a line of credit against your home loan is fine - as long as you don't mix it with any personal stuff, so redraw doesn't work). Wife got the Citibank 3.9% loan that was on OZB a few weeks ago (still good till the end of the month). She just got a loan for the MV of the car + acquisition cost (got done on stamp duty transferring it to her name). The way it works, its an ongoing operating lease between my wife and my employer - i salary sacrifice $x per pay, which my employer pays into my wife's bank account. She claims deprecation (I put it in a pool, so first year was 15%, then 30% thereafter) + running costs against the income she receives from my employer. My notated lease supplier used to require like for like tyres, etc - now I don't have to worry about those things :)
But yeah, associate leasing is so much easier than dealing with the novated lease company once its set up. And she's on a lower margin rate, so any excess will be taxed at her rate, not mine. Once we both finish uni, and no longer getting work related cents/km on our non-salary sacrificed car, I'll do the same thing and associate lease both cars (there's no limit).
Do you really blame people for tax evasion to reduce their excessive tax bill?
There is so much wastage and inefficiency in this country and they have a knack for squandering our hard earned tax dollars. Fortunately, this is less severe under a Liberal govt which exercises greater financial prudence than their Labour counterparts, which quite frankly, have an atrocious track record of misspending and systemic inefficiency which ends in a black hole budget deficit oblivion.F-35?
Spending billions on fighter jet planes is good value and keeps our country safe from terrorists.
F-35s are stealth jets. I cannot imagine why Australia needs a fighter jet that loses so much from being stealth.
i.e. It costs far more with maintenance. It cannot hold as much missles and fuel as other non-stealth jets. Only justifications I can see are the ability to infiltrate enemy territory without being seen, which I don't think Australia benefits from that much.
F15s and F18s are still very decent jets that has advantages over many, if not most, jets. They even cost less than F35 as far as I remember.
My question would be, how much Australia would benefit from having F35s instead of having more F15s or F18s? If F15s and F18s can do what F35s can do but better, how is it a good spend?
Look at what else is flying is Asia.
You don't know what the alliances will be in 10 years. The F35 isn't just an expensive plane for today - it's airframe for tomorrow. I personally support our pilots having the best planes available to us in the world, not the planes that just get the job done which all our regional neighbors also have access to.
Also you said "If F15s and F18s can do what F35s can do but better, how is it a good spend?". Do you seriously believe that? That's just insane if you really think that.
The F15 when it was being produced had just as much controversy surrounding it, but because the Russians had the Mig25 - the program was justified. Of course as soon as the USA got their hands on the Mig25 they realised that it was a piece of junk and only suitable for interception and not an air superiority fighter. Now look at how the program was viewed 44 years after the F15's first flight. That's right the F15 airframe is 44+ years old.
@c0balt: If it is a plane for tomorrow, buy it tomorrow. Cost of aircrafts go down as more countries buy it, for example cost of F35s now would be less than what it costed because of the recent deals with South Korea. Also with competitions coming out, PAK-FA, J-20 the price is going to go down further.
Australia already got burnt with E-737, why does Australia need to get burnt from buying a new military aircraft that clearly has not gone through as much trials and errors? Even US is having a hard time trying to get F-35s to work, so yeah.
Also as I said, stealth jets sacrifices a lot in terms of fuel and weapon choices/numbers it can carry as well as maintenance cost. You can fight stealth aircrafts with jets that are designed for electronical warfare to some extent. i.e. EA-18G vs F-22. Also there are many counter measurements against stealth aircrafts that I cannot mention here because I value my head being on top of my head.
In terms of defence, stealth jets are not useful. If a jet cannot be in air long enough to travel back and forth and defend, you need more jets or you need a tanker which is risky if you are under attack. Not to mention, how both methods are costly. This is the main reason why I said F-35s are worse in terms of those areas.
US air force's main aircraft for mainland is F-15E. Also, F-35s are designed as the low end for F-22s. It's designed to fill in the gaps that F-22s cannot fill in because of money and numbers.
So my question is, why does Australia need something that has cheaper alternatives?
"If it is a plane for tomorrow, buy it tomorrow. Cost of aircrafts go down as more countries buy it"
No it doesn't. It went down due to the horrible sales figures projected initially and now more are jumping on board so the shared R&D costs go down. Other airplanes costs go up as demand goes up. Would rather that our fighter pilots have old planes until the new ones become cheaper? Our military isn't ozbargain.
"Australia already got burnt with E-737, why does Australia need to get burnt from buying a new military aircraft that clearly has not gone through as much trials and errors?"
That's the exact same story as your argument with keeping the F18 as our only air superiority fighter though. If you retrofit an old plane then there's only so far that you can go before the airframe just isn't suitable.
"Also there are many counter measurements against stealth aircrafts, that I cannot mention here because I value my head being on top of my head."
Oh please. You're full of it.
"In terms of defence, stealth jets are not useful. If a jet cannot be in air long enough to travel back and forth and defend, you need more jets or you need a tanker which is risky if you are under attack."
Again, you are full of it. Interceptors with long range stand off munitions along with ground based stations are used for defense, not air superiority planes. The F35 is about being able to take the fight to the enemy where he has a lot of defense but where a strike is needed.
"So my question is, why does Australia need something that has cheaper alternative?"
Because there isn't without sacrificing many lives and the missions themselves. Also you keep mentioning the F15, you do know that we don't have the F15 in Australia yes?
@c0balt: There are radars that counters stealth as the main method of stealth is via absorption and diffusion.
Honestly speaking, I see steatlh jets as slightly gimmicky at this moment. Especially ones that don't work as they are designed to. Gun software issues etc etc.
No it doesn't. Every plane factors in the R&D costs.
As the volume of the production increases, cost of the production decreases.
Unit costs decreased for F-35s for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_….
This is not because of reduction in R&D cost, but rather increasing volume of production does decrease amount of fixed cost, i.e. R&D cost, attached to each airplanes. Also PAK-FA was said to aim for cheaper price than its alternatives. I found this post that is in English, but I am not sure how valid the whole article is. http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32129. My point is, even if Australia needed a stealth aircraft, it would've become a cheaper option, if Australia waited.My argument is simple, stealth jets cannot be on air for long, because they have to be stealthy and in order for that to happen they have to reduce RCS. They reduce it by shape, size, and absorbing some of the radar wave using special type of paints. Because of this, for defence purposes, there are better/relatively cheaper options.
Size and shape limits the amount/type of weaponeries it can carry, F-22 for example stores its weapons inside. It can carry more on the outside, but then it becomes more visable to radar. Also stealth aircrafts cannot fly as long as the non-stealth aircrafts, in general, because of the size/shape issues. Example, F-15 vs F-15SE. Because of this, tankers or more aircrafts would be needed for defense. This leads to cost issues. The maintance cost of the stealth aircrafts are higher because of the paint as well.
Being in air for longer is crucial for defence purposes because gaps in the air space due to refueling issues cause holes in defence line. Not to mention how being able to carry more missles is crucial for reducing the gap as well.
This is rather personal thing, but 1 engine vs 2 engines, I'd prefer aircrafts with 2 engines, because even if one goes off, you can use the other one to land your aircraft. F-15, F-18 all have two engines. This was one of the reasons why F-15s won over F-20s in Korea as well.
There are no cutlines on what should be used for intercepting as well, it really just depends on, how close the unidentified aircraft is to what airbase and other factors like which aircraft can be scrambled, whether the unidentified aircraft is fast or slow etc etc.
Air superiority planes like F-15s are not just for fighting enemies in air as well. F-15K can use SLAM-ER which is used for attacking ground targets, my point is, there is no "Use this aircraft for intercepting". Also, your argument about ground based stations, there always is a problem with targetting the same target as well, which leads to inefficiency as well as possible friendly fire.
I don't deny that there needs to be investments on military. What I am arguing is that Australia could've bought more F-18s or F-15s and it could've worked better in terms of defence.
The F35 was originally conceived as a "low cost" muiltirole fighter to replace a whole bunch of other planes (A10, Harrier, F16 and others). And for Navy, Air Force and Marines. For some reason they thought they could do close air support, air superiority and carrier operations all in the same plane!
That was an impossible requirement. So who could have predicted it is now over budget and under performing?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/26/the-jet-that-ate-the-pen…
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-figh…Yeah its much better value than educating the poor. Spend more money on defence whilst increasing student university fees and thus making it more difficult for average kids to move up the class ladder. Suits the liberals core supporters - they want as little competition as possible for their kids and grandkids.
@devz: F-15 and F-18 both are from USA.
As a person who still thinks PAK-FA was better choice out of the 3 in the F-X, I do agree with you. One of the biggest reason why Korea chose F-35 was because of USA.
Though I can clearly see why US would like F-35 purchases over those two; F-35s are still fairly expensive even for them.
Yes, I do blame them. I pay my taxes and my expectation is that others pay theirs.
A good 'deduction' I recently heard of came from a doctor friend whom every year bands together in summer holiday time with a group of doctor friends at an appropriate resort to hold a make-shift conference.
Essentially the family/kids conveniently tag along, and then each night at dinner one doctor will give a quick speech on some topic of interest to the table. Meanwhile the accommodation / meal etc is considered a self-education expense.
I'm not sure what the minimum number of people required to host such an event are to give it legitimacy, and what other paperwork / registration etc must be performed - but it is purely a tax rort.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2013/05/14/the-medical-co…
In theory, I assume any group of friends with a common job role could do such a thing - be it medical / engineering / IT / law / etc - so long as there is an education element.
I have heard this one as well… family friend/doctor got told about it at an AMA conference (they have tax advisors do talks at their conferences). LOL
A few others:
- conferences held @ thredbo during the ski season… don't worry if you miss the talk - they conveniently record it and deliver it to your room that evening.
- my favourite: one of the professions had a conference in US/Canada ski resort… the registration was something ridiculous, like $5k… but to bring a spouse was a small figure, like $300… EVERYONE brought spouses! The $5k component was fully deductible.If I google my job description for a seminar, or possibly an investment seminar in a region I'm interested in holidaying in, then book a trip in that region in that date range, then keep a log/ flyer for that seminar, will that cut it? Let's assume I attend the seminar. I then apportion the length of the seminar (let's say 3 days) out of the total 5 days total holiday..Can I claim 3/5th of holiday cost?
Yep you can do that. Holiday costs includes all the flights, accommodation and meals and travel to attend the seminar.
doctors (and other health workers) can actually salary sacrifice all meals
just need a maxia card
And rent too I hear?
That only applies to non-profit organisations and public hospital employees. Neither GPs nor specialists who work in their own private clinics can salary sacrifice.
Minimise tax completely by stop producing income. Quit your job. Done. Too easy!
(and here's your one-page tax return: a non-lodgement advice form)My wife and I have not long had our first child and will be minimising our tax by both becoming part-time (both receiving $18,000 tax free threshold) rather than myself just fulltime or both FT and paying child caring expenses. Both of us together part time will earn about $20K less than my fulltime gross income but will actually take home the same amount in net plus the priceless incentive of being at home more with our young one. However that wouldn't suit most, we're just lucky we have somewhat flexible occupations and hold permanency.
That's a great idea!
this is the way to do it.
An aggressive strategy…..
Income +$250k wages and investments
Negative gearing -$110k (property, shares, investment loans >$2m)
Salary packaging -$30k meals and holidays (health charity)
Salary sacrifice -$10k
Taxable income circa $100kBut …
paid $80k stamp duty recently to buy investment property.
up to the neck in debtA tip for anyone in healthcare who may one day work for a health promotion charity or a public hospital (even in admin, finance, IT, cleaning etc).
- keep all your big meal receipts, holiday receipts and venue hire receipts (even your wedding from 10 years ago).There is no maximum "backdate" in the legislation. I have seen staff salary package a "Big Greek Wedding" from 10 years before they even got the job and as illegitimate as this sounds it is allowed - just so long you keep the receipt and proof that you paid it (not paid by your parents, etc).
Also holidays are now allowed as "venue hire" but not flights…unless you package the flights as part of the hotel accommodation which is not hard to do.
May I ask how would this be relevant if your working for a public hospital?
Under what circumstances would the ATO consider that a work related expense?
In NSW at least it's an approved salary package scheme. The hospital gets part of the return so they are also keen on it.
The Public Hospital Salary Packaging Scheme (good) and the Health Promotion Charity Packaging Scheme (better) do not require that the meals or the venue hire (e.g. hotels, wedding venues, holidays) be work related. You can package expenses that are purely for personal enjoyment of yourself and your family.
It is a fantastic incentive to work in the public health sector.
Some of the obvious recipients would be:
- nurses
- doctors
- health care workersAnd less obvious recipients
- hospital admin
- hospital cleaners
- staff working for Health Promotion Charities like the Stroke Foundation or Cancer Council.
- IT/finance/ancillary services at hospitals
- some research jobsIf you have one of these jobs and aren't exploiting this perk to the maximum you are absolutely mad.
last tax return I did didn't auto pre-fill my savings account $ earned in interest.. so after lodging my claim the ato paid my refund then 5 months later, sent me a letter saying they are going to invoice me the difference.. $380 later I'm sad :(
Will have to put my savings into the off-set account for our mortgage I reckon ..
Definitely that's what you need to do. I was stung a couple of times this way before it was explained to me, makes perfect sense to have your money working for you, not against you when taxes are already so high.
Few ways i reduce my taxable income via deductions.
Claim meal allowances, i get paid 2 meal allowances a day (at 11.90 each) i can declare these and deduct them at 27.05 each, so for 528 meal allowances for the year = $6283.20, i declare that as taxable income and then claim them back at $14282.
I also do the same for my away from home/travel allowance (which is i think around 180 per day maximum claimable, ontop of that i can claim a 3rd meal everyday, upto a total of 104 dollars)
Claiming my travel to and from work, because i carry more then 20kg of equipment for work (safety gear + normal work gear + bedding, food, fridge etc) and because its shift work there is no public transport available (76c per km, 27.2km each way)
Then all the usual stuff, laundry, stationary, batteries, sunglasses, sunscreen, mobile phone, tax accountants fees, travel to and from accountant, accommodation to the accountant (since he is in Sydney and im in Newcastle)
Then you move onto IP's and claiming those, so claim the REA fees, all maintenance and repairs + upgrades, also they are negative geared, so claim the difference between the repayment and its rental income.