Mansfield, Jill Honor v Commissioner of Taxation [1995] FCA 1008

CATCHWORDS INCOME TAX - Deductions - outgoings incurred in the gaining or producing of assessable income - flight attendant - whether expenditure on grooming, hairstyling, stockings and shoes is deductible - whether sufficient nexus between expenditure and employment - s51(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth): s51(1).

Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Smith (1981) 147 CLR 578; referred to. Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Cooper (1991) 29 FCR 177; followed. Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Edwards (1993) 93 ATC 5162; applied. Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Edwards (1994) 49 FCR 318; applied. JILL HONOR MANSFIELD v COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION No NG 314 of 1994 CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 13 DECEMBER 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG 314 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: JILL HONOR MANSFIELD Applicant AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent

CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 13 DECEMBER 1995

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The objection decision of the Commissioner be set aside. 2. The objection be remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons. 3. The respondent to pay the applicant's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG 314 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: JILL HONOR MANSFIELD Applicant AND: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent CORAM: HILL J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 13 DECEMBER 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT At all times during the year of income ended 30 June 1990, Mrs Mansfield was a flight attendant employed by what was then known as Australian Airlines. In her tax return for that year she claimed to be entitled to a deduction in the sum of $1,215, made up of $469 claimed under the rubric "cosmetics", $434 for hairdressing, $132 for stockings and $180 for shoes. In respect of these items, she received an allowance from her employer in the sum of $1,019. The Commissioner included the sum of $1,019 in her assessable income. He disallowed to her the whole of her claim for a deduction of $1,215. Mrs Mansfield objected to the assessment and that objection was disallowed. There were other items at issue between Mrs Mansfield and the Commissioner but those items no longer are in dispute. Mrs Mansfield appealed to this Court against the decision of the Commissioner disallowing her objection. In her tax return Mrs Mansfield gave fuller details of the deduction which she claimed. In particular, she said, of her claim for a grooming allowance, that it was "substantiated by invoices, receipts or other documentation of the expense being incurred". She further elaborated the claim to deduct expenses for grooming in the following terms: "To achieve and maintain the Skin and Facial Care standards as set out in the Employer's Manual considerable expenditure is incurred during the year in purchasing skin care conditioners, hand lotions, lipsticks, blush and eye make-up and other body creams. The continual working in pressurised aircrafts dries the skin and requires the use of moisturisers. Claim $469."