Latest News

Hot Issues
spacer
COVID-19 resources -Update July 2020
spacer
JobKeeper Phase 2 - The Next Step
spacer
Payroll Tax 2020 concessions and JobKeeper
spacer
Work Related expenses – 2020
spacer
‘Everyone is now on notice’: ATO acquires COVID-19 data on 3m Aussies
spacer
Extra Tools & Resources for our clients.
spacer
Year End Tax Deductions – “equipment”
spacer
Home Office Claims 2020
spacer
Early release of super sees ‘high take-up’
spacer
Tax time 2020: ATO homes in on rental deduction claims
spacer
ATO announces Div 7A COVID-19 assistance
spacer
‘HomeBuilder’ grants now available.
spacer
$150k instant asset write-off extended for 6 months
spacer
Tax Time Checklists - Individuals; Company; Trust; Partnership; and Super Funds
spacer
JobKeeper documentation ‘absolutely critical’ in ATO audit
spacer
ATO updates JobKeeper compliance approach
spacer
COVID-19 hotspots - tax time 2020
spacer
Tax reform to feature heavily in PM’s JobMaker plan
spacer
Jobkeeper Fraud warning
spacer
ATO extends initial JobKeeper payment deadline
spacer
Boosting cash flow - ATO
spacer
Our website, your resources
spacer
ATO releases JobKeeper alternative test
spacer
Temporary Working from Home Expenses Rule
spacer
Minimum Pensions Halved – 2020 & 2021
spacer
More coronavirus support for landlords, commercial tenants
Article archive
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2020
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2020
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2019
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