In the recent decision of JMC Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 750, the Federal Court found that an ‘independent contractor’ was an employee for super guarantee purposes.

In the recent Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) decision of Trustee for Virdis Family Trust t/a Rickard Heating Pty Ltd v FC of T [2022] AATA 3, the AAT relied on the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (Moffet) to find that a plumber who was engaged as a contractor was an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).

In the recent decision of Olias Pty Ltd as trustee for the Storer Family Trust and Commissioner of Taxation, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) found that a “contract” music teacher fell within the ordinary definition of ‘employee’, and was therefore an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (SG Act).

As discussed here, the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (16 June 2020) (Moffet) marked an important shift in how the courts have interpreted the employee/contractor distinction for the purposes of superannuation guarantee obligations.

In the recent decision of MWWD v FC of T 2020 ATC (16 October 2020), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) found that payments to a contractor repair technician did not trigger a superannuation contribution/charge obligation under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (SG Act).

In the recent decision of Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (16 June 2020) , the Full Federal Court found that a dentist fell within the extended definition of ‘employee’ under s12(3) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (SG Act). Section 12(3) broadly provides that an employee is a person who is working ‘under a contract that is wholly or principally for the labour of the person.’