In the Hayley & Lunney case it was held that the cost of home - work travel was not incurred in gaining income. The occasion of the outgoing could not be found in the activities that gave rise to the income, but merely in the taxpayer's choice to live some distance from his place of work
However there will be circumstances in which the travel is so closely related to the processes giving rise to the income as to be part of them. Can you think of an example in which the obligation to travel is part of the duties of the employment?
What about the travelling salesman?
From the moment he leaves his home in his car he is actually undertaking the duties of his employment - travelling
We call him an itinerant and say his travel costs are deductible
We say he has an itinerant employment. He has no one fixed place of work, but must travel from place to place in order to perform the activities for which he is paid - the travel is part and parcel of his duties under the obligations of his employment contract. He is actually performing these duties from the moment he leaves home
Refer CCH Master Tax Guide - para 14-230 These were the facts of Wiener's case. Refer CCH Master Tax Guide - para 14-230. The taxpayer would not have been able to perform her duties without the use of her motor vehicle. The nature of the job itself made travel in performing its duties essential - it was an itinerant employment
The answer is no - Burton's case - see below These are the facts of Burton's case refer 79 ATC 4317 Unlike Ms Wiener - Mr Burton was not an itinerant - there was no tacit understanding or implicit obligation that he use his own car
