Who can you trust?
Are your service fees tax deductible?
Do they bank reconcile with
an actual bank account or a fake journal entry?
For service fees to be tax deductible they must be able to be substantiated.
A simple journal entry is not sufficient evidence of payment. Journal entries alone,
without an accompanying agreement, are inadequate.
In one case, a taxpayer was denied a deduction for an interentity service charge that was
recorded in the taxpayer's accounts but not actually paid. The deduction was disallowed due to
insufficient evidence showing that the service charge was incurred in the course of the taxpayer's business.
The presence of a 'service agreement' was considered to have minimal evidentiary
value because the terms of the agreement were not adhered to during the arrangement.
Relevant cases include:
Manzi v Smith [1975]
HCA 35 PBKQ v FCT [2016] AATA 681
Temples Wholesale Flower Supplies Pty Ltd v FCT [1991] FCA 162
Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti [2018] FCAFC 212
Trustee for JC Mobile Sharpening Discretionary Trust 7 (JC Mobile Sharpening)
and Robis Consulting Pty Ltd and FCT 8 (Robis Consulting)
We are aware there are software companies and accountants offering potentially
noncompliant software that may significantly impact the accuracy of tax returns.
A specific concern is the use of automated journal entries that practitioners where no valid
service agreement that confirms the business model or collates the evidence the arrangements are
valid for tax purposes. Incomplete or inappropriate charts of accounts, accounting
and billing systems do not always support the tax items reported by the service entity or practitioner.
There remains confusion or lack of awareness of this systemic problem.
A simple journal entry is not sufficient evidence of payment. Journal entries alone,
without an accompanying agreement, are inadequate.
In one case, a taxpayer was denied a deduction for an interentity service charge that was
recorded in the taxpayer's accounts but not actually paid. The deduction was disallowed due to
insufficient evidence showing that the service charge was incurred in the course of the taxpayer's business.
The presence of a 'service agreement' was considered to have minimal evidentiary
value because the terms of the agreement were not adhered to during the arrangement.
Relevant cases include:
Manzi v Smith [1975]
HCA 35 PBKQ v FCT [2016] AATA 681
Temples Wholesale Flower Supplies Pty Ltd v FCT [1991] FCA 162
Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti [2018] FCAFC 212
Trustee for JC Mobile Sharpening Discretionary Trust 7 (JC Mobile Sharpening)
and Robis Consulting Pty Ltd and FCT 8 (Robis Consulting)
We are aware there are software companies and accountants offering potentially
noncompliant software that may significantly impact the accuracy of tax returns.
A specific concern is the use of automated journal entries that practitioners where no valid
service agreement that confirms the business model or collates the evidence the arrangements are
valid for tax purposes. Incomplete or inappropriate charts of accounts, accounting
and billing systems do not always support the tax items reported by the service entity or practitioner.
There remains confusion or lack of awareness of this systemic problem.
Tenant Doctor Certified
Organisations
Legal
(Tenant DoctorTM Certified Evidence Based Service Agreement)
Accounting
(Tax Agent Service Act 2009
Compliant Eligible)
Compliant Eligible)
Bookkeepers
(Tax Agent Service Act 2009
Compliant Eligible)
Compliant Eligible)
Coming Soon...
Bank
(Centralised Bailment
Banking Enabled)
Banking Enabled)
Software Vendors
Practices
This is some text inside of a div block.
Coming Soon...
If you would like to join us,
make an online appointment HERE
make an online appointment HERE
Ethical and Legal Disclosures
As reported in the national media,
the Royal Australian College of General Practice (RACGP) has requested and
received a copy of the national ATO and SRO submission.
The ATO application was reviewed by two independent law firms:
Hamilton Bailey Lawyers and Peak Commercial and Tax.
the Royal Australian College of General Practice (RACGP) has requested and
received a copy of the national ATO and SRO submission.
The ATO application was reviewed by two independent law firms:
Hamilton Bailey Lawyers and Peak Commercial and Tax.
FAQ Accounting Book Keeping and Tax Compliance Questions
1. Practitioner Money Back Guarantee: Have you been paid fairly and correctly?
actual bank account or a fake journal entry?
3. Is the Tenant DoctorTM model legally tax-compliant, ensuring that no additional payroll
tax, superannuation contributions?
Why become Tenant DoctorTM certified?
Visit our Legal and Tax Compliance Advice Terms, Conditions, Privacy and Disclaimer
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
Powered by
.webp){kind=logo}
