Question One (a) Sulin is an accountant at a large accounting firm. In May, she went to Hong Kong for an accounting conference. She incurred expenses of $2,000 on the plane ticket and$500 on hotel costs. Her employer did not reimburse her for those expenses but provided Sulin with a daily allowance of $200 for her meal and local transportation costs. Sulin had chosen to go to the conference because her family is in Hong Kong and she took the opportunity to visit them while she was there. The conference ran for two days and she stayed on for an additional four days at her parents' home. (b) After returning to Australia after the Conference, Sulin decides to look for a new job. She has an interview at a prospective employer and incurs $1,000 travel costs to attend the interview as she has to travel interstate. She receives a job offer which she accepts and starts at the new job. Required: Advise Sulin as to the deductibility of the airfare and hotel costs in part (a) and the travel costs in part (b). Why is Sulin treated differently to the taxpayer in the Spriggs & Riddell decision?