Zach: ensuring fairness in the objection process

Zach approached our office after experiencing what he believed was an unfair and discouraging process during the ATO’s audit and subsequent objection regarding his 2024 self-education expense claim. Across several discussions, he outlined four concerns:

• whether he had been afforded procedural fairness in the objection review
• whether TR 2024/3 had been applied correctly, particularly regarding the vocational relevance of his studies
• whether comments made during the process could be viewed as attempts to deter him from pursuing an objection
• whether his experience reflected a broader imbalance in how individuals and larger entities are scrutinised.

We undertook a detailed investigation, focusing on the appropriateness of the ATO’s objection handling and the technical application of TR 2024/3. This included reviewing the steps taken by the ATO, assessing how vocational alignment had been considered, and seeking further clarification where processes or reasoning appeared unclear.

Our engagement prompted the ATO to initiate an internal review of its objection decision, providing a fresh assessment of the deductibility of the self-education expenses in line with the ruling.

Following its review, the ATO concluded that Zach’s income earning activities clearly relied on specialised skills and knowledge, and that the studies demonstrably maintained and improved those capabilities. Under Principle 1 of TR 2024/3, this met the primary test for deductibility.

The ATO accordingly remade its decision to allow the self education expense and appointed a case officer to guide Zach through the final steps.