ATO to appeal ART decision on truck driver’s meal expenses

The ATO will appeal a recent decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia (ART), Shaw and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2025] ARTA 224, which determined that deductions claimed by a long-haul truck driver for meal expenses should be allowed in full.

Last week, the Commissioner of Taxation filed a notice of appeal against the ART's decision in the Federal Court.

In its decision last month, the tribunal ruled against the Commissioner, allowing the $32,782.50 in deductions claimed by the driver for meal expenses in the 2021 income year.

The driver had calculated the amount by multiplying the number of days he was away from home by the maximum reasonable daily allowance set out in TD 2020/5, which was $105.75.

The ATO had issued an amended assessment in 2022 that reduced the driver's claim deduction to zero.

After the truck driver objected to the amended assessment in January 2023, the ATO then allowed the objection in part, increasing his allowable deductions for meal expenses to $5,890 based on a review of his logbook, fatigue diary and bank statements.

This was an average of $19 per day multiplied by 310, being the number of days the driver was away from home.

In its decision, the tribunal criticised the ATO’s allowance of $19 per day for meals as an “absurdly inadequate amount”.

“While the tribunal appreciates that the Commissioner was seeking to assess the evidence to determine what could be substantiated, sensible tax administration is realistic,” Joanne Dunne, general member of the tribunal, said.

The tribunal said the Commissioner had significant amounts of data available, such as the average grocery spend and that there were other available areas for investigation.

“The Commissioner could also have found credible submissions made to it accompanied by bank statements and other evidence, particularly where to do otherwise is to act so unrealistically,” it said.

The tribunal determined that the truck driver had incurred the disputed expenses in gaining or producing his assessable income.

“The Tribunal does not agree with the Commissioner that there is an insufficient linkage between the expenditure on bank statements and [the truck driver’s] work.”

It noted that the applicant’s evidence was credible and gave a broad mechanism for apportionment, and that basis could have covered many of the Commissioner’s concerns.