Did some googling on this topic and it seems that "double dipping" is still allowed.
I'm sorry to say this, but it is has been removed effective 28 June 2005. The person writing that article probably hasn't been notified of the change by the relevant parties.
Previously, you could rely on
TD 93/145 to use the double dipping strategy, but then the ATO withdrew it on the 29th of June 2005 and replaced it with
TD 2005/D17. Now, the substance of each determination is basically the same, but notice the change of the title.
TD 93/145 (the old withdrawn one) "Income tax: is an employee entitled to a deduction for depreciation in relation to an item of plant used for income producing activities when he or she is subsequently reimbursed for the cost of the item?"
TD 2005/D17 (the new one) "Income tax: is an employee's deduction for the decline in value of a depreciating asset used for a taxable purpose affected by section 51AH of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, if they are subsequently reimbursed an amount for the cost of the asset by their employer? "
The second determination refers to the 1936 act, not the 1997 act rewrite. Why is this important?
Because section
20-40 of the ITAA 1997 requires a person claiming a deduction under Division 40 (ie claiming depreciation) to declare in their assessable income any recoupment they receive for any depreciation claimed. You can look at the example at section 20-40 for how it works. And the 1997 act overrides the provisions of the 1936 Act. Division 20 covers more areas to prevent someone from double dipping where someone else incurs the expense so you can have a further look if you want.
And Julia pointed
this out some time ago.