Limiting the ability of those seeking to advance their knowledge and remain up to date “fails Economics 101”, IPA chief executive officer Andrew Conway told SMSF Adviser.
“There is an increasing demand for qualified and experienced professionals to service an ageing population; it just defies logic that [a] government would seek to remove the incentives [for] professionals who enhance their skill base to provide [those] services,” Mr Conway said.
“Why a government would try and impose such a constraint on the economy, it completely defies logic apart from achieving a short-term budget outcome.”
Mr Conway added that this cap could “significantly restrict” the capacity of professionals to undertake training, which by extension could potentially affect the quality of advice given to clients, including those with SMSFs.
“Any government would be foolish to impose any measure that… has the potential to smother such a massively growing sector… it just fails any law of economics for anyone to impose a restriction on the quality of advice.”
The IPA is calling on the government to rethink the measure and take “swift action” to resolve any uncertainty.
“We think there’s an opportunity for discussion and opportunity for a more practical solution,” Mr Conway said.
This is the problem and if you are not self employed or running your own business, but like my staff want to further your education for your future career, then this is very restrictive. For those running businesses the expenses can be claimed as staff training etc but we need not forget the employees we all have. As stated before most post graduate courses these days are over $3,000.
Reading some of the comments it appears that some do not understand that this restriction to self education incorporates any training so will not be able to be claimed by an individual under general expenses if over $2,000. I have just received a brochure for a conference costing over $1500 and will not go half way to my required hours of training for this year.
Penny pinching Government….save a few cents and lose many dollars.
Makes NO sense for anyone including the government.
Fed Govt must not know that a single university course for postgraduates costs over $3,000 now. This means you could not claim the full costs of just one subject a year on this proposal. How are staff able to do their CA or CPA or further tax law courses etc? Pure ignorance!
“constraint on the economy”? Is IPA concerned about the training institutes business growth? How come that is? Self educational expenses are deductible for practioners who undertake the study as a general business expenses. How that is matters for practioners?
I am astounded with the comments from the IPA. The deductability of self education should not be of concern. If you want to provide professional services in the SMSF area then you need to appropriately qualified and trained. If you get a deduction well fine, if not then the cost of not maintaining the necessary knowledge could well come back and you far more. The benefits of maintaining knowledge far outway the costs of not getting a tax deduction
It fails any level of credibility and is self defeating. Pricing advice beyond the access of investors is fraught with danger
This is appalling commentry coming from a professional association. May I suggest that the self education deduction is for expenses incurred in learning new skills with a view to creating future opportunity, ie at the time the expense is incurred the relevant skill/activity is not generating current income. An operating adviser generating current income from that activity would claim all expenses including ongoing traing and compliance as an expenses incurred in the generation of assessable income in relation to which there is no limit ig genuinely incurred.