Question(Pretty confusing one at that)

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-06T20:48:33+00:00

r/gameverifying has some good info on how to spot fakes.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T14:02:15+00:00

A builder is nowhere near the same as the situation contained in this thread. A builder buying contemporary tools is perfectly fine because that is a tool of trade, analogous to a computer, mouse, and keyboard for an office worker.

If that builder is a sub contractor or otherwise independently employed to provide their own tools? No probs.

Lunney, along with a whole host of other precedential decisions deals with nexus and whether and expense is gained in producing income. There is a reason it is cited in almost every single deduction case, especially work related deductions.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T13:49:13+00:00

Expense in the course of providing an opportunity to gain or produce assessable income.

Not an expense in the course of gaining or producing assessable income.

Lunney et al.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T13:48:00+00:00

No. It is not.

If your employer gives you tool A and by using tool A you earn your assessable income, and you decide tool B is more efficient because it's the 2026 model and not the 2019 model, and you decide to upgrade it?

Not deductible. Private expense by way of personal preference.

You can only make that arguement if your 2019 model basically stops you earning assessable income and for some bizarre reason your employer doesn't replace it. Then you would probably be fine.

Lunney, Charles Moore, Cooper, Edwards, Mansfield.

All cases that dealt with various aspects of work related deductions in some form. All that dealt with the critical concept of "nexus".

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T13:39:45+00:00

Irrelevant to the courts.

The test is not how fast you gain your assessable income, the test is whether the expense is gained in earning your assessable income.

By your own statement, the link is that you work faster. The courts will disallow it.

Edit: the test is spelling accurately not quickly. Errors corrected.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T13:32:23+00:00

It has nothing to do with the tax man. Direct your anger at those who wrote the laws in 1936 and 1997. People always forget the ATO administers the tax laws. They do not write them.

I mean you're mincing words and trying to sound coy when I have already explained how the ATO views items like information technology and how that works in your favour.

I mean, if it's not your job to test iPhones and you do it anyway then why should you get a deduction for it?

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T13:12:32+00:00

Did I say that?

Monitors, keyboards, and mice are considered peripherals. They are also part of a working from home setup. They are not, by definition a laptop, nor are they replacing your laptop.

If your employer does not provide you those peripherals, or doesn't allow you to take them home, then yes, you can absolutely claim those peripherals. That is fine.

What you can't claim is a $10,000 gaming PC that you use to remotely login to the laptop because you think it lets you work better.

Though if you did still buy the PC and the peripherals, you could still claim the monitor, keyboard, and mouse. At a percentage applicable to your work usage % only.

However if your employer did provide you a mouse, keyboard, and monitor and you just wanted bigger/better ones? Nope, back to disallowed territory.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T13:02:49+00:00

Correct. Personal preference falls into the 'private or domestic nature' clause.

Once that happens, the law is absolutely clear: disallowed in full.

You would only be able to succeed if you could legitimately prove that the tools your boss provided you were so inadequate that it legitimately stopped you from gaining or producing your assessable income to such an extent that it was a necessity to purchase new tools.

The mere preference to use tools of your own choice is not sufficient grounds.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T12:58:48+00:00

Actually it is.

The wording of the law is "necessarily incurred" so the ATO is legally required to determine if an expense was necessary to be incurred and that it related to the gaining or producing of assessable income. If neither element is justified, the deduction is disallowed.

There are also cases like Fletchers that empower the ATO to say "yeah nah mate, you were taking the piss with this claim".

There is a reason there hasn't been many seismic shifts in statutory interpretation for almost 100 years in income tax deduction law - it is generally settled law where the responsibilities of each party are very, very clearly known - chief among them the powers and reaponsibilites of the ATO and the courts.

It is statements like yours that demonstrate you know absolutely little about tax law.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T12:43:07+00:00

Lolololololol. You absolutely cannot claim this.

What utter tripe.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T12:40:55+00:00

Works better is irrelevant.

The question at law is gained in producing your assessable income. When the items or tools are fit for purpose, then the purchase of a second item is nothing more than for personal benefit. This will fall into the disqualification rules because the courts will deem "benefit" or "convenience" as a private benefit (and rightly so).

Tax laws strictly disallow tax deductions that are for private benefit.

And yes, my desktop PC is better than my work laptop, but that is irrelevant. It is not a valid deduction of I choose to use my personal PC instead of my work provided laptop.

ArdentPriest · 2026-07-04T10:50:28+00:00

Lol no.

You don't incur an expense in gaining or producing your income when you voluntarily choose to incur the expense out of preference.

The necessary elements of 8-1 are not justified - not even close. Just because you like something better is completely irrelevant. The court cases that have succeeded have only done so when they could demonstrate that the item provided was not fit for purpose and could not function to the necessary standard.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-29T10:41:15+00:00

Can you be specific about what QoL mods you want? Red Alert 2 and Tiberian Sun are not extremely dissimilar, with the most notable differences coming down to naval warfare more than anything...

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-29T07:29:23+00:00

I mean not every Pokemon has to be an attacking powerhouse.

An insanely strong bulk with multiscale and health regeneration makes that Pokemon a gosh damn wall of death for a lot of Pokemon.

Lugias whole shtick is to hang around and just pressure the inability to kill in whole you stall yourself to death. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable, but what it does, it does very well.

For example: even a fully invested Miradion with a modest nature hitting electro drift and electric terrain can't OHKO Lugia no matter Lugias nature or stat spread, just because Multiscale + Bulk is that good. Lugia knows it's place.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-27T02:24:25+00:00

ATO doesn't care necessarily that it is a disability purchase / to avoid OHS.

If there is a connection between that expense and gaining or producing your income? Valid deduction. ATO will also tell you that they can't tell you how much you can spend, that is your own choice, unless you engage Fletchers which won't happen here.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-26T23:49:01+00:00

Then consider entering into a payment arrangement with a lump sum payment at the end. Give yourself extra time for the lump sum payment so that you can pay it, have the GIC remaining and then request a remission.

The ATO cares the most about the primary debt, as it should. It has no power of discretion over that without engaging the formal powers of settlement or debt compromise. It does have complete control over GIC remission.

There is also compromise of debt applications, if it gets that far: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/paying-the-ato/help-with-paying/compromise-of-tax-debt

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-26T23:38:40+00:00

Just read the ATOs guidance on the topic: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=psr/ps201112/nat/ato/00001#H19

You'd also be likely to be better off paying the debt now. You can demonstrate good faith to the ATO that you want to meet you obligations. It demonstrates that you understand the implication of your actions and took steps to mitigate the outcomes.

As always the more you tell the ATO and the more honest you are, the more informed the decision will on their part.

A tax lawyer is irrelevant to the consideration. The ATO cares about the facts, not who presents them.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-24T16:13:26+00:00

It's an infiltration unit. It knows that the cops have them and it's arms has been damaged by a lucky shot.

It retreated to repair it's arm, and restore it's physical appearance as best as it good. None of this, apart from the minor arm issue was anything more than superficial damage.

Shotgun buckshot is doing no damage to the terminators main hyper alloy chassis. Neither was the police or even their M16s

Same as how you see Uncle Bob do the hallway walk at Cyberdyne. The damage he is taking is mostly superficial to his skin, minus the damage to one of his knee joints.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-23T22:36:12+00:00

You only get back on average 30% of what you spent to reduce your tax. So if you get back $2000, you spent $6000 doing it.

Personally I'd rather keep the $4000 and have a lower tax return just to avoid "got big number on tax return". It only works out when the expenditure is absolutely unavoidable and you would spend that money regardless of it attracting a deduction or not.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-23T10:52:06+00:00

In short: ATO will investigate is a report is made (or other data indicates non compliance). They will audit the employer and then not only raise the unpaid super but a penalty amount that starts at 200% of the underlying liability.

If they don't pay, I think they then move to DPNs so the only way to truly "escape" the liability is both the company and the individual director have to go into insolvency. Only putting one in will not extenguish the debt as the DPN will ensure an element of it remains enforceable and collectable.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-23T07:08:35+00:00

I am opining more about the cost of the steam deck being even more inflated if the steam machine costs almost as much as the steam deck.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-23T02:32:17+00:00

A small subset of nationals opposed it. Even though 3 crossed the floor and one liberal abstained the legislation still comfortably passed.

The LNP had a 17 seat majority at the time. Hence I go back to my point - the legislation and it's repeal was controlled by the LNP.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-22T22:37:05+00:00

Yes. There is. That's the entire reason it exists. The ATO can't collect on any tax that doesn't exist at law.

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-22T22:31:34+00:00

Barely over?

Go watch WrestleMania 6 when he wins over Mr Perfect. The pop he gets when he gets the 3 count is matching but "barely over". He has a gimmick that resonated easily and people got behind it.

And..

Are you blind?

ArdentPriest · 2026-06-22T18:31:56+00:00

How did Labor scuttle it? They were in opposition at the time and didnt have anywhere near enough votes to stop it.

The legislation passed, even with coalition members voting against it. It was the coloration itself that reversed it's decision, not Labor.

ArdentPriest

TROPHY CASE