, , ,

Uber Case – Payments made to drivers are deemed to be wages for payroll tax purposes

, , ,
Uber Case – Payments made to drivers are deemed to be wages for payroll tax purposes

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has held that payments made to Uber drivers are deemed to be wages for payroll tax purposes under the relevant contract provisions.

In particular, the drivers provided services to Uber under their driving contracts.  The driving contracts governed or controlled the driver’s performance.  The driving services were not ancillary to the use of the vehicles.  Uber was not successful in challenging the earlier decisions of Optical Superstore and Thomas and Naaz – in particular, the payments made to derivers were “paid or payable” by Uber.

, , , ,

New South Wales case causes rethink on drafting of trust exclusion clauses

, , , ,
New South Wales case causes rethink on drafting of trust exclusion clauses

A New South Wales case has opened up a risk of taxpayers to surcharge rates of stamp duty and land tax for residential land held in family trusts where badly drafted foreign person exclusion clauses have been used.  This may require a complete review of all trust deeds to ensure that additional stamp duty and land tax imposts are not incurred.

, , , ,

Sladen Snippet - New Victorian Penalty Tax regime to hit taxpayers

, , , ,
Sladen Snippet - New Victorian Penalty Tax regime to hit taxpayers

The State Government has introduced a new bill to State Parliament to implement changes from the 2025-2026 Victorian State Budget.  Despite a promise of no new taxes or increased taxes, a new 50% penalty tax rate allows the State Revenue to impose higher penalties if it considers a taxpayer or their adviser has been “reckless”.

, , , , ,

Victorian State Budget 2025-2026 - Tax Increases On The Way

, , , , ,
Victorian State Budget 2025-2026 - Tax Increases On The Way

The 2025-2026 Victorian State Budget contains no new taxes or increased taxes, however previously announced changes have been confirmed – including increases to the congestion/car parking levy and the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy.

, ,

Sim - Spouse of Australian citizen triggers Victorian foreign purchaser additional duty

, ,
Sim - Spouse of Australian citizen triggers Victorian foreign purchaser additional duty

A Victorian foreign purchaser who bought a property in her own name with funding provided by her Australian spouse was unsuccessful in a VCAT request for exemption from foreign purchaser stamp duty surcharge in Sim v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 349.

, ,

Sladen Snippet – Malcolm - Land tax joint assessment

, ,
Sladen Snippet – Malcolm - Land tax joint assessment

The decision of Malcolm v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 218 has considered the operation of the joint owners of land provisions for Victorian land tax purposes and confirmed that where two taxpayers own multiple parcels of land together, the joint owned land will be aggregated and the progressive scale of land tax rates will be applied only once.

, , ,

Conexa - Water Pipeline is an Interest in Land and Subject to Landholder Duty

, , ,
Conexa - Water Pipeline is an Interest in Land and Subject to Landholder Duty

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision that a pipeline was dutiable for the purposes of the New South Wales landholder duty provisions in Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCA 20.

, , ,

T & A Skills Care Service – The importance of evidence for primary production land tax exemptions

, , ,
T & A Skills Care Service – The importance of evidence for primary production land tax exemptions

The recent NCAT decision of T & A Skills Care Service Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 18 demonstrates the importance of a taxpayer discharging its evidentiary burden in claiming the primary production exemption from land tax.

, , ,

Victorian land tax trust provisions – VCAT’s changing perspective

, , ,
Victorian land tax trust provisions – VCAT’s changing perspective

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision of Caloutas as trustee for Caloutas Family Trust v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 82 has considered the interaction of bare or fixed trusts and the Victorian land tax trust surcharge provisions.

, , ,

Can you recover landholder duty from other parties (including from shareholders) - Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd

, , ,
Can you recover landholder duty from other parties (including from shareholders) - Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd

The Victorian Supreme Court decision of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lao Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 800 has considered the ability for a company to recover landholder duty from the shareholders that had made the relevant acquisition.

, , , , , ,

Can you Mislead or Deceive Someone if You Have Honestly Relied on Your Lawyers Advice? A Case Study on ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd

, , , , , ,
Can you Mislead or Deceive Someone if You Have Honestly Relied on Your Lawyers Advice? A Case Study on ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd

The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment in ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd highlights that if a corporation honestly relies on advice from their lawyers that may provide reasonable grounds to defend the making of a representation that concerns the present state of affairs.

The Federal Court found that representations made by Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (REST) regarding their rules and practice were opinions expressed as to the law based on reasonable grounds due to reliance on advice received from their lawyers and other trusted sources. Therefore, the representations made could not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct.

, , ,

Uber not liable for payroll tax – New South Wales Supreme Court decision

, , ,
Uber not liable for payroll tax – New South Wales Supreme Court decision

The New South Wales Supreme Court has that Uber is not liable for payroll tax on payments made to drivers in Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] NSWSC 1124.

, ,

Sladen Snippet - New Victorian Short Stay Levy Bill 2024 introduced into Parliament

, ,
Sladen Snippet - New Victorian Short Stay Levy Bill 2024 introduced into Parliament

A new tax will be imposed on both short stay service platforms and others who offer direct bookings of short stay accommodation. The levy will apply to stays less than 28 days but will exclude a homeowner’s principal place of residence or commercial residential premises (i.e. a hotel, motel etc).

, , , ,

Imbree Appeal - NSW taxpayer denied stamp duty exemption for transfer from SMSF to member

, , , ,
Imbree Appeal - NSW taxpayer denied stamp duty exemption for transfer from SMSF to member

A taxpayer has lost an appeal in New South Wales on the ground that a potential exemption did not apply to agreements to transfer. This has wide implications for other transactions.

, , , ,

Oliver Hume Appeal - Victorian Landholder Duty Applies on Capital Raising

, , , ,
Oliver Hume Appeal - Victorian Landholder Duty Applies on Capital Raising

On 8 August 2024, the Victorian Court of Appeal in Oliver Hume Property Funds (Broad Gully Rd) Diamond Creek Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VSCA 175 confirmed that landholder duty applied on the separate acquisition of shares by 18 investors under a single capital raising.  The Court held that that capital raising amounted to substantially one arrangement and therefore was a relevant acquisition for landholder duty purposes.

, , , ,

Tao - Becoming a sole director of a corporate trustee triggers landholder duty despite no acquisition of units in a unit trust

, , , ,
Tao - Becoming a sole director of a corporate trustee triggers landholder duty despite no acquisition of units in a unit trust

The VCAT decision of Tao v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 637 has confirmed the breadth of the Victorian landholder duty change of control provisions - despite no acquisition of units in a unit trust.

, , , ,

Water Pipeline Subject To Duty As “Goods” For The Purpose Of The New South Wales Landholder Duty Provisions in Conexa Sydney Holdings

, , , ,
Water Pipeline Subject To Duty As “Goods” For The Purpose Of The New South Wales Landholder Duty Provisions in Conexa Sydney Holdings

On 24 May 2024 the New South Wales Supreme Court held that landholder duty applied to value of a water carrying pipeline in Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2024] NSWSC 628.

, , , ,

New South Wales State Budget 2024-25 – Increase to foreign surcharges and payroll tax relief for GP contractors

, , , ,
New South Wales State Budget 2024-25 – Increase to foreign surcharges and payroll tax relief for GP contractors

The New South Wales State Budget 2024-25 is a mixed bag, containing an increase to foreign surcharges, but also payroll tax relief for GP contractors. The tax-free threshold for land tax will also remain the same, so more landowners will be subject to land tax as property values rise.

,

Sladen Snippet – Merristock – primary production exemption applies as trust can beneficially own shares

,
Sladen Snippet – Merristock – primary production exemption applies as trust can beneficially own shares

In a case run by Sladen Legal, Merristock Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 535, the taxpayer has successfully appealed against a Victorian State Revenue Office (SRO) determination that land owned by the taxpayer was not eligible for the primary production land tax exemption.

, , ,

Godolphin case: High Court decision considers the “dominant use” test under the NSW land tax primary production exemption

, , ,
Godolphin case: High Court decision considers the “dominant use” test under the NSW land tax primary production exemption

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd (Godolphin) and confirmed that it cannot claim the primary production land tax exemption, as it was unable to show that the “dominant use” of its properties was for primary production where it also had substantial horseracing activities.  The decision illustrates the issues that can arise when primary production land is used as part of business models that include other interrelated activities.