1. In passing, the Tribunal was advised Mr Afshari also runs as his own engineering consulting business, which has also been the subject of an audit an objection decision of the Commissioner. No further detail as to the nature and extent of the business or the compliance process was provided.
2. In any event, the Tribunal is only concerned with the expenses as the relate to his employment with GHD. In response to a question about record keeping it was not clear what, if any, measures were taken to ensure separation between business and employment activities.

1. The Applicant represented himself in the proceedings and does not have formal legal or accounting qualifications. The Tribunal has had regard to this fact in assessing the manner in which the evidence was prepared and presented.
2. Mr Afshari accepted in his evidence that some records were not prepared contemporaneously and were reconstructed from memory or other documents for the purposes of the audit, objection and the review process. The Applicant also accepted that some records contained errors.
3. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence having regard to those concessions. While the absence of contemporaneous records does not automatically preclude acceptance of a taxpayers evidence, it may affect the weight to be given particularly where objective records are available.
4. At various points in his evidence, Mr Afshari suggested the Tribunal could obtain confirmation of aspects of his evidence from third parties. It is not the role of the Tribunal to undertake investigative inquiries of that nature. The Applicant bears the onus of establishing that the assessment is excessive and what the correct assessment should have been.
5. The Tribunal has considered the evidence as a whole, including documentary evidence, oral evidence and the surrounding objective circumstances.

1. Mr Afshari seeks to claim work related car expenses comprised of:
   • $9800 in deprecation for the Lancer and the Prado;
   • $1238 of service and maintenance costs for the Lancer and the Prado;
   • $2,101.95 in fuel costs.
2. The expenses have been calculated based on the business use percentage, which Mr Afshari says is 42.36% for the Lancer and 79.29% for the Prado based on the log book records.
3. At audit and objection, the Commissioner did not accept the claims on the basis that the Applicant had failed to establish the travel was on work (rather than to work) and the log book did not comply with the legislative requirements.
4. The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions put the Applicant to proof on the nexus issue. However, in closing oral submissions, the Commissioner conceded nexus but maintained the expenses has not been substantiated or properly apportioned.
5. Mr Afshari's evidence was that he undertook some work from home before travelling to offsite locations. This was inconsistent with the response provided by GHD that there was no such requirement, although the employer concedes they did not have full visibility of what Mr Afshari actually did.
6. The evidence of the specific circumstances of each of the 22 site visits is sparse in nature, but even in accepting the travel was on work, Mr Afshari has still failed to discharge his onus of proof. The Applicant was required to keep logbooks in order to make the logbook claim.[28] He is also required to keep odometer records for the relevant income year.[29] Critically the accuracy and reliability of the logbooks was disputed by the Respondent.
7. Mr Afshari has produced multiple versions of the logbook through the audit and review process. He maintains that any changes have been to satisfy requests from the Commissioner and although some minor errors have been identified, the distance travelled has remained consistent.
8. Mr Afshari did not provide receipts relating to all the service and maintenance costs.[30] Some of the receipts said to substantiate the fuel costs did not include fuel or included other unrelated expenses.[31] There is no evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate the loan repayments of the Prado.
9. From the Tribunal's review of the log books and the evidence of Mr Afshari, it is plain that;
   • none of the versions were contemporaneous and were reconstructed from a separate book maintained by Mr Afshari that has not been produced in evidence;
   • the logbooks entries were inconsistent with independent records before the Tribunal. For example, the odometer reading reflected in the service record for the Lancer was significantly higher than the odometer readings in the log book after that date;[32]
   • the log books also refer to travel inconsistent with other records provided by the Applicant; [33]
   • Mr Afshari claimed in his response at audit, the Lancer was damaged during a site visit on 20 November 2022 and included a photo of the damage. That trip is not recorded in the Lancer logbook.[3] It is recorded as a trip in the Prado log book, which in any event undermines the reliability of the records.
10. I cannot be satisfied the logbooks are accurate, complete or contemporaneous. I find that the logbook records are reconstructed, inconsistent with objective records and not prepared contemporaneously. I find the log books do not comply with the legislative requirements.
11. The log book method is only available when the statutory record keeping requirements are satisfied. In the absence of a complying logbook there is no basis upon which the Tribunal can determine the deductible business use percentage or the actual expenses incurred. Accordingly, as the Applicant's claims are calculated on that basis, he has failed to discharge his onus of proof and the deductions must be disallowed in full.

1. Mr Afshari seeks to claim work related travel expenses comprised as follows:
   • $362,05 in taxi fares; and
   • $690 in uber fares.
2. Mr Afshari did not lead evidence clearly identifying which travel expenses had been reimbursed by his employer and which expenses had not. Further, the Applicant did not establish that the taxi expenses were incurred by him having regard to the apparent use of cab charge facilities. The ride share documentation did not include the date, time or destination of travel, which are generally available as part of these records.
3. Regardless, Mr Afshari gave no explanation to the expenses outside the broad assertion that were incurred for work purposes. There was no evidence as to purpose of the travel and the relationship with the income producing activities.
4. Accordingly, I'm not satisfied that the expense was incurred in gaining or producing assessable income and has the necessary nexus s 8-1 of the ITAA 97. The Applicant has failed to discharge his onus of proof and the claim must be disallowed.

1. Mr Afshari sought to claim as a deduction $140 in respect of an Iranian language class provided by the Iranian Association.
2. The Applicant was employed as an engineer. No evidence was provided to demonstrate how the language course maintained or improved skills required for that role, or was otherwise sufficiently connected to the Applicant's income producing activities. It is not enough that a course may generally improve some skills or knowledge.
3. Accordingly, I'm not satisfied that the expense was incurred in gaining or producing assessable income and has the necessary nexus s 8-1 of the ITAA 97. The Applicant has failed to discharge his onus of proof and the claim must be disallowed.

1. Mr Afshari sought to claim other work related expenses comprised as follows:
   • $2826.41 in home office expenses relating to utilities;
   • $717.42 mobile phone expenses;
   • $960 internet expenses;
   • $2451.01 in relation to an air conditioner and repairs to a door lock and the office ceiling.
2. There is no dispute that Mr Afshari worked from home in the Income Year and that there was a dedicated space set aside for this purpose. The Commissioner allowed a deduction based on the fixed rate method calculated by reference to the formal work from home agreement.
3. Mr Afshari in this matter seeks a deduction based on his actual expenses. The Commissioner did not accept the expenses were incurred or the proposed apportionment of those expenses.
4. Mr Afshari did not provide documentary evidence substantiating the utility expense is said to have been incurred. Rather, the Applicant provided calculations estimating the business use proportion of those expenses. In the absence of underlying invoices or other corroborating evidence, I'm not satisfied Mr Afshari has established that the claimed utility expenses were incurred.
5. Even if I were to accept that the utility expenses were incurred, I'm not satisfied that the apportionment adopted is fair and reasonable. During the relevant, the household included the Applicant, his spouse, 2 school aged children and his elderly parents. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the utilities were used for ordinary household purposes by multiple occupants. The Applicant claimed approximately 70% of the relevant expenses as work related. Notwithstanding at the work area was said to be physically separate from the main residence, I'm not satisfied there is an evidentiary basis supporting that level of work related use. The Applicant has therefore not discharged his onus of establishing the extent of any deductible portion of the utility expenses.
6. Mr Afshari provided screen shots of payments to Vodafone which I understand relate to the mobile phone expenses. The front page of the internet invoice from Telstra was also in evidence.
7. Even if I accept the mobile phone and internet expenses were incurred, apportionment remains an issue. In circumstances where expenses have both a work related and private component, apportionment must be undertaken on a fair and reasonable basis. The Applicant did not provide call records, usage analysis or other evidence from which the Tribunal could determine the extent of work related and private use of the mobile phone. Mr Afshari accepted in his evidence there was an element of private use. In the absence of objective evidence supporting the apportionment, the Tribunal is not able to determine the exact extent of any deductible proportion.
8. Similar considerations apply in relation to the internet expenses. While I accept that the internet was available for work related use, there is no reliable or independent evidence establishing the extent of work-related usage.
9. I have considered the calendar material provided by the Applicant. Mr Afshari accepted that these records were reconstructed. Further, there were inconsistencies between this material and the information provided by the Applicant's employer regarding the work from home arrangements. In those circumstances I placed limited weight on this material and I'm not satisfied that those records provide a reliable basis upon which to determine the extent of work-related internet usage. The Applicant resided with his spouse and two children. It is reasonable to infer that the internet was used for private household purposes. In the absence of evidence enabling a fair and reasonable apportionment, the Applicant has not discharged the owners of establishing the extent of any deductible amount.
10. Mr Afshari also claimed deductions for repair and maintenance expenses, including repairs relating to a door lock and water leakage. The Applicant asserted the repairs related specifically to the home office area, as opposed to other parts of the residence. I'm not prepared to accept the uncorroborated statements of the Applicant. Therefore, Mr Afshari has not discharged the onus of establishing entitlement to deductions for those repair expenses.
11. In relation to the air conditioning unit, I accept that the Applicant is entitled to a claim a decline in value only in accordance with the applicable provision. To that extent I'm satisfied that the deduction allowed by the Commissioner is appropriate and correct.

1. The Applicant's case failed, in the main, because he was unable to provide accurate, reliable and contemporaneous documents to substantiate his claims. In doing so, he failed to discharge his onus of proof as set out in s 14ZZK(b)(i) of the TAA.
2. The Respondent's objection decision is affirmed.

Litigation and Legal Services, Australian Taxation Office

[1] Section 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)

[2] McCormack v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1979] HCA 18; (1979) 143 CLR 284 at [303]

[3] Hua-Aus Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 341 at [22]

[4] Rigoli v Commissioner of Taxation (2014) 141 ALD 528

[5] Federal Commissioner of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 74; (2011) 193 FCR 149 at [82] per Ryan, Jessup and Perram JJ; see also Imperial Bottleshops Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1991] FCA 276; (1991) 22 ATR 148; 91 ATC 4546

[6] Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti [2018] FCSFC 212; FCR 385

[7] Ronpibon Tin NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1949] HCA 15; (1949) 78 CLR 47 at [56-57]

[8] Commissioner of Taxation v Payne (2001) 202 CLR 93 at [9]

[10] Sun Newspapers Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1935] HCA 81; (1935) 54 CLR 295 at [303]

[11] Fletcher & Ors v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 173 CLR at [1]

[12] It is not in dispute the Applicant is an employee and therefore s 8-1(1)(b) is not relevant, see Lunney v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1958] HCA 5

[18] Faichney v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1972] HCA 60

[19] Ronpibon Tin NL and Tongkah Compound NL v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation.

[20] ITAA 97, s 900-10

[23] Imperial Bottleshops Pty Ltd & Egerton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, (1991) 91 ATC 4546, at [31].

[27] The Tribunal documents includer hospital records that corroborate the Applicants father was in hospital during August 2022.

[28] ITAA 97, s28-12, 28-13

[30] An invoice was only provided for the service costs of the Lancer, no invoices or bank statements were produced in respect of the Prado.

[31] For example receipts dated 29 August 2002 for a prepaid mobile sim card

[32] The service receipt dated 10 November 2022 record the odometer 124 563, the log book record the odometer as 100124 on 29 November 2022 and 101203 on 13 June 2023.

[33] The Lancer log book records work related travel on 23 April 2023, which is a Sunday and not recorded in the calendar, travel on 2 May 2023 which his recorded as a sick day in the calendar; the prod logbooks record travel on 12 April 2022 and 23 May 2022 and 26 June 2023 which are recorded as a personal leave day in the calendar.