Latest News

Hot Issues
spacer
Employee or independent contractor: What happens when it goes wrong?
spacer
Single Touch Payroll (STP) reporting irregularities: ATO contacting businesses
spacer
Employee entitlements, ‘wage theft’ and Fair Work: Why it’s time to be proactive
spacer
How's Australia really doing - the real figures?
spacer
Pension deeming rates cut from 1 July 2019
spacer
Audit warning sounded as ATO clamps down on dodgy claims
spacer
New ATO data-matching program – overseas movement data and HELP debt
spacer
ATO black economy strike force heads to Brisbane
spacer
Access to more resources and tools than most websites.
spacer
Tax Return Mistakes
spacer
SMSF advice appetite strong, says ASIC
spacer
Taxpayers confused by Scott Morrison’s $1,080 tax refund
spacer
Common STP set-up mistakes - ATO
spacer
Proposal to hold directors liable for GST set to pierce corporate veil
spacer
September 2019 - vital statistics for Australia
spacer
Tax Commissioner wants to turn black economy to ‘lighter shade of grey’
spacer
Changes to the Private Health Insurance Statement
spacer
Up to 9 in 10 ‘other’ expenses adjusted as ATO reveals dodgy claims
spacer
Downsizer Super Contribution
spacer
Tax payers to receive beefed up tax returns.
spacer
10 top global corporations since 1998
spacer
Catch-up Contributions
spacer
Life Insurance
spacer
Community tip-offs trigger ATO visits
spacer
Australia at a glance
spacer
2019: Tax Time Checklists - Individuals; Company; Trust; Partnership; and Super Funds
spacer
Small business clients need to be ready for STP by 30 September
spacer
Big four firm outlines new financial year checklist for SMSFs
spacer
Alert - Online Share Accommodation
spacer
ATO flashes warning over $7.2bn car expenses claims
Article archive
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Employee or independent contractor: What happens when it goes wrong?

The perennial question has reared its head and it was just a matter of time given the burgeoning gig economy.

       

 

The new working arrangements provide flexibility for workers, arrangers and customers. But what are the tax and other economic implications for those involved?

The changing working arrangements have put a spotlight on the traditional dichotomy between an independent contractor and an employee. The new arrangements suggest a further category, as yet undefined, that has characteristics of both.

A recent decision by the Fair Work Commission in Joshua Klooger v Foodora Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 6836 demonstrates what can go wrong when the critical concept of engagement is misinterpreted.

Foodora was involved in the delivery of restaurant meals, food and drink and other items to homes and offices. Joshua Klooger entered into an “Independent Contractor Agreement” with Foodora that stipulated he was an independent contractor and not an employee.

In considering the “totality of the relationship” (a common line in such cases), the commission found that Joshua was, in fact, an employee. He was found to have been unfairly dismissed and Foodora was ordered to pay him compensation. Given that arrangements were the same for all its workers, the logical application of this decision is that it would apply to all of Foodora’s workforce.

Significantly, tax authorities circled during the heading and moved in once the decision was handed down.

Not only would payroll tax obligations seem to exist, but other employment tax obligations such as pay-as-you-go withholding (PAYGW), superannuation and personal services income (PSI) as well.

Two tax investigations were conducted into the Foodora business; one by Revenue NSW in relation to potential payroll tax liability and a separate investigation by the ATO looking at millions of dollars in potentially unpaid withholding taxes and superannuation.

The cumulative impact of this decision was that the German-founded food delivery business had to leave Australia.

As if these impacts were not enough, the decision of the Fair Work Commission effectively changes the flow of income and expenses for both Foodora and the worker.

Instead of the independent contractor receiving all the income and paying an amount to the digital platform provider, the result is now that the digital platform provider receives all the income and pays some of that to its employees. While this may not change the bottom line for either, the implications across a range of stakeholders including banks, government departments and auditors are significant.

Tax authorities in Australia have been grappling with the murky line between employees and independent contractors for many years. While there have been some attempts to solve the problem, none have been effective.

The commission’s decision, and in turn the ATO’s view of employees/contractors, can also be considered using a medical practitioner example. A medical practitioner is often not an “employee” of the medical practice, but an independent contractor. This generally sees the medical contractor issue the practice an invoice for their services. Under this scenario, the medical practitioner is responsible for paying their own superannuation, income tax instalments and liability insurance.

This is a very common example of a work arrangement between a medical practitioner and practice, which has generally been accepted by the ATO. However, the abovementioned Klooger v Foodora decision may provide precedence for some further investigation by the ATO.

With the above case in mind, the ATO may seek to further focus on contractor relationships such as this. If the ATO was to take the view that these practitioner/practice relationships are in fact an employee relationship, there would be a large number of medical practitioners and medical practices that would need to reconsider their tax structures and affairs.

From the view of the medical practice, this may involve more out-of-pocket expenses as not only would the practice have to pay the practitioners wage as an employee, they would also need to pay superannuation guarantee charge (SCG), allow for leave entitlements and ensure their insurances cover the employee.

From the view of the medical practitioner, this would likely simplify their tax affairs; however, as they are no longer carrying on a contracting business, certain tax deductions may no longer be available and the possibility of splitting income through certain tax structures would also be unachievable.

Alternatively, the practitioner and practice may elect to continue with their current arrangement; however, the ATO seeks to review the arrangement with the following outcomes:

  • Request the practice pay an applicable outstanding SGC to the practitioner’s superannuation fund. As this would be late paid superannuation, no tax deduction would be allowed for the payment.
  • Charge a 10 per cent interest rate and quarterly administration fees on the unpaid SGC amounts.
  • Amend the practitioner’s income tax return under the personal services income (PSI) provisions to disallow certain deductions and income splitting.

It is critical that any business, not just gig economy businesses engaging independent contractors, understand the issues and take all steps to ensure that their business model works; otherwise, the consequences can be catastrophic.

 

Tony Ince, senior analyst, RSM Australia
20 September 2019 
accountantsdaily.com.au

 

© O'Brien and Partners 2011 - All Rights Reserved | 91 Station Street, Malvern VIC 3144 | Tel: 03 9509 3911 | Fax: 03 9509 3922