The Tribunal accepted he worked from home. The problem was never the activity. It was the evidence.
An engineer earning $155,747 claimed $61,286 in work-related deductions. The ATO audited. The Tribunal disallowed almost everything.
Afshari and Commissioner of Taxation [2026] ARTA 159 is a warning about what happens when the records do not stack up.
What happened
Mr Afshari was employed as an engineer by GHD Pty Ltd [2]. He claimed car expenses, travel, home office running costs, self-education and interest, totalling $61,286. By the hearing, his pressed claims were $33,692.77 [13]. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner’s objection decision [112]. Every major category was disallowed.
Where it fell apart
Car expenses ($11,130): Mr Afshari used the logbook method. But his logbooks were reconstructed from a separate notebook never produced in evidence [61, 90]. Multiple versions were provided during the audit [63, 88]. Odometer readings were inconsistent with service records [64]. The Tribunal found the logbooks were not accurate, complete or contemporaneous [91]. No compliant logbook, no deduction [92].
Home office ($4,127.93): GHD confirmed the formal WFH arrangement was 2 days per week [6, 53]. He claimed significantly more. His evidence was a personal calendar reconstructed from memory for the audit [54, 72]. He claimed around 70% of household utilities as work-related in a household of 6 [51, 104]. No utility invoices were provided [73]. The Tribunal found no reliable basis for the apportionment [103-104].
Travel ($3,027.84): Taxi fares were paid using Cabcharge [68, 94]. Ride-share records lacked dates, times and destinations [68]. He initially claimed conference travel to Newcastle, but the conference had been postponed to the following income year [69-70].
Interest ($15,407): Related to a car loan [10]. It properly falls under car expenses. With car expenses disallowed, the interest fell with it.
The practitioner takeaway
The Tribunal accepted Mr Afshari worked from home and attended off-site locations [85-86, 101]. The problem was not the activity, it was the evidence [111].
Records must be contemporaneous and consistent with independent evidence. Where logbooks are reconstructed, provided in multiple versions, and conflict with service records, the Tribunal will not accept them [90-92].
Where WFH arrangements evolve beyond the written contract, the ATO may go to the employer [6]. If the employer says 2 days and the client says more, the client needs contemporaneous evidence to bridge that gap.
Apportionment must be supported by objective data [104]. A 70% claim in a six-person household backed only by the taxpayer’s own calculations was never going to survive scrutiny.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.