^ thanks for that tip John. Looks like Redgum missed another step that was missed.
I should be a real pro by Tuesday.
^ thanks for that tip John. Looks like Redgum missed another step that was missed.
I should be a real pro by Tuesday.
All the best with it, Mark. I am a retired CPA. Don't claim to be current with everything though ... .
I think these days you've got to show some income/contracts etc. Gone are the days when you could just get an ABN and claim the tax back on anything photography related for your "business".
Although, given all the wives that are directors in their husbands company or paid large salaries as the company accountant, I'm wondering why I can't just get the Mrs to commission me to photograph her life at the rate of say, $3000/month. Proper contract and terms etc. Boom, instant professional status with associated tax deductable benefits of anything photography related.
Yes it's transparent, but so are all (ok, some must be real) the "wives as paid employee situations".
My Flickr Site
Instagram _alex_ham_
Gear - Canon 5D mkIII, 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L IS, nifty 50, 75-300 f4-5.6. Sigma SD Quattro H, Sigma 35 mm Art, Sigma 85 mm Art, Canon G1X MkII, Panasonic Lumix DMC LX3, iPhone.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
Gidday Ham
The ATO has always had a check list of what constituted " ... the carrying on of a business ... ". They used to be red hot on these, but have relaxed considerably after being smacked down by the High Court year after year, starting with the avocado farm case and even before that.
Even the ATO eventually has to (mostly ... ) take notice of the full bench of the High Court of Australia, even if they, and the Socialist left, think that the Commissioner for Taxation has God-given powers ... They haven't. The commissioner is just another public servant, governed by the Commonwealth Public Service Act, and answerable to the Parliament, and bound to obey the rulings of the applicable courts.
If I had a taxable income, I would claim my photographic expenses as 'Advertising', not camera gear.
This is because my photography can cause my business web site to get up to 200,000 hits a month which it would not otherwise attract. It is what puts Canopus Computing at or near the top of the list in Google searches ... . This is validly classified as an advertising expense ... This also constitutes ' ... a reasonably arguable case ... ' under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, as amended ... .
Sounds good. Unfortunately for me me "day job" doesn't benefit from my photography (although the company office has got my images all over one floor). Hence my musing re generating legitimate income via a client who retains me on a monthly basis, and just coincidentally happens to be my wife. Just curiosity though, not something I'm planning on doing.
Even though this hasn't been responded to for a couple of years, I've gone through it avidly over the last couple of days. It is a great read and lots of great information.
Thanks heaps all.