Secretary to the Department of Transport (Victoria) v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1209 at [63] per Gordon J:
Take, by way of example, a commercial law firm that provides a Cabcharge facility for the use of its employees who work after a certain hour. To use the facility, an employee is given a Cabcharge card. Subject to certain conditions, the fares charged to the card are paid for by the firm. The Cabcharge card bears the name of the employee and, usually, the name of the employer. Despite underlying conditions as to eligibility (namely, the card is to be used by the employee of the firm named on the card who has had to stay at work after a certain hour), the firm exercises no control over the use of the Cabcharge facility (namely, which taxi-cab is used or the destination to which the employee is travelling). The firm is operating an enterprise — the provision of legal services. The enterprise requires attendance by its employees beyond standard working hours. In conducting that enterprise, the firm elects to acquire and does acquire a service — taxi-cab transport — to see its employees transported to their choice of destination when they are required to work late. The enterprise (the law firm) acquires a service (taxi-cab transport) for a creditable purpose (the carrying on of the business of the law firm) which is a taxable supply made for consideration (the payment of the taxi-cab fare through Cabcharge). In my view, the firm would be entitled to input tax credits for the GST paid on the taxi-cab fare.
I am sure that the resemblance to any law firm is purely coincidental.
