Legal news
This Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is a series of decisions against five jockey racing clubs brought by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) regarding whether the racing clubs must pay super contributions on behalf of jockeys under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
In the decision of S&H Investments Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2024] AATA 893, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation to assess the taxpayer for the superannuation guarantee charge for failing to pay superannuation for their employee/contractor referred to as “TW”.
The Full Federal Court, in the decision of JMC Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 76, has effectively found that a right to delegate (unless such right is a sham) means a person will be a contractor (and not an employee) and won’t be engaged principally for their labour.
The Full Federal Court has confirmed in Jamsek v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCAFC 48 that a truck driver partnership was not eligible for super guarantee contributions. The decision is an important decision in relation the application to super guarantee in relation to contractors and, in particular, partnerships and other entities.
In Part 1 of our Super Guarantee article series, we discussed the background to the super guarantee regime and an overview of how the regime operates. In Part 2, we looked at who will be covered by the super guarantee regime, and in Part 3 we specifically looked at when this will include certain contractors.
As discussed under Part 2 of this super guarantee article series, under the super guarantee system, super contributions must be made on behalf of “employees” as that term is defined under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
Under the super guarantee system, super contributions are made on behalf of “employees”.
Section 12(1) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act) provides that “employees” for the purposes of the SG Act are defined under their ordinary meaning. That is, the meaning of that term at common law.
In the recent decision of Signium Pty Limited and FCT [2022] AATA 2824, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) upheld super guarantee (SG) assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and refused to remit Part 7 penalties further.
The taxpayer operates a small pig farming business. The business is run by a general manager, and at relevant times it employed two or three people.
The ATO conducted an audit of the taxpayer’s SG obligations and issued 16 SG charge assessments for quarters ending 30 September 2013 to 31 March 2017. The Commissioner also issued a Part 7 penalty assessment of 200% of the SG charge (Part 7 penalties are automatically incurred under Part 7 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act) for failure to lodge SG charge statements within the relevant timeframe).
The taxpayer disagreed with the ATO’s calculation of the shortfall amounts on the SG charge assessments. However, the Tribunal accepted the ATO’s calculations as they were more thorough than those provided by the taxpayer. The taxpayer asked the Tribunal to remit the shortfall interest component of the SG charge, but the Tribunal declined, noting that the Commissioner has no discretion under the SG Act to remit the shortfall interest component.
The Part 7 penalties were remitted to 35% during the review process, and the Commissioner agreed that a further 25% remission was appropriate. The taxpayer argued that the penalties should be reduced further due to various factors including the general manager’s age, his health conditions, the impact of COVID-19, drought in 2018-2019, bushfires in 2019 and flood in 2021, all of which put the business under considerable pressure. However these factors all arose after the relevant quarters which were the subject of the audit, and therefore did not impact on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not persuaded to remit the Part 7 penalties further.
Key takeaways from this decision:
While a taxpayer should confirm the accuracy of the calculations making up an SG charge assessment, and cross-reference these with their own records, a taxpayer cannot argue for remission of the shortfall interest component, as the Commissioner has no discretion in this regard;
Part 7 penalties are incurred automatically under the SG Act at 200% of the SG charge for late or non-lodgement of SG charge statements. The Commissioner has discretion to remit Part 7 penalties with regard to various mitigating factors. Where the taxpayer is arguing that these factors impacted on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations, it is key to show a nexus between these factors and the quarters in question.
Phil Broderick
Principal
M +61 419 512 801 | T +61 3 9611 0163
E: pbroderick@sladen.com.au
Philippa Briglia
Senior Associate
T +61 3 9611 0173
E pbriglia@sladen.com.au
Jan Oh
Graduate Lawyer
T +61 3 9611 0158
E joh@sladen.com.au
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).
As discussed here and here, the superannuation guarantee (SG) amnesty allowed employers to disclose and pay previously unpaid SG charge, including nominal interest, for the quarters between 1 July 1992 to 31 March 2018 without incurring the administration component ($20 per employee per quarter) or Part 7 penalties. In addition, payments of SG charge made to the ATO under the amnesty were tax deductible.
In anticipation of the conclusion of the superannuation guarantee (SG) amnesty (discussed here) on 7 September 2020, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has released a draft Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2020/D1 (PSLA 2020/D1) in relation to how, post amnesty, the ATO officers may exercise their discretion to remit Part 7 penalties.
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.’
As part of the broader framework of the JobKeeper scheme (discussed here) established by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020, the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Jobkeeper Payment) Regulations 2020 (Amending Regulations) have now been made.
