Legal news
One of the anomalies of the super guarantee system is the inability of employees to force employers to make contributions payable under the system. That could soon change, with proposed changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 which would allow employees to force employers to make contributions to avoid the liability to pay the super contribution charge under the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (SG Act)
The Government has announced that, from 1 July 2026, employers will obligated to make super contributions at the same time they pay their employee’s their salary and wages (eg weekly, fortnightly or monthly). Currently, super must be made within 28 days of the end of each quarter.
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.
Treasury has released an information sheet on how the new “30% tax rate” for super balances over $3 million will work.
After industry pushback against the disproportionate application of the non-arm’s length income (NALI) and non-arm’s length expenses (NALE) rules, Treasury has a released a discussion paper to modify the application of the NALI/NALE rules.
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
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
The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Owies v JJE Nominees Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 142 (Owies) will surprise many trustees of discretionary trusts and their advisors. Effectively, the Court found that the decision of the corporate trustee (controlled by the parents of the family) of a discretionary trust not to properly consider two of their children (who were estranged from them), when making annual distributions from the trust, was voidable (and potentially void).
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 much anticipated decision of Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd, the High Court has determined that regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SIS Regs) does not apply to binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) prepared for self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).
The ATO has confirmed that its current administrative approach to the non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE), as set out in Practical Compliance Guide PCG 2020/5, will be extended to 30 June 2023.
