Private ruling: Genuine redundancy payment
Published: September 2011
Ruling period: Year ending 30 June 2011
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2010

Ruling: Q1: 1. Is the payment for termination (the Payment) received by you an employment termination payment in accordance with subsection 82-130(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? 2. Is any part of the Payment received by you considered to be a genuine redundancy payment in accordance with section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997? Advice/Answers 1. Yes 2. No


Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 27F. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 82-130. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 82-130(1). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Paragraph 82-130(1)(a). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subparagraph 82-130(1)(a)(i). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Paragraph 82-130(1)(b). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Paragraph 82-130(1)(c). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 82-130(2). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 82-135. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 82-135(e). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 83-175. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(1). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(2). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(3). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(4). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 995-1.

Reasons for decision: Detailed Reasoning - Summary:: The payment received by you is an employment termination payment as: · the payment has been made in consequence of the termination of your employment; and · the payment is received no later than 12 months after termination; however no part of the payment is a payment that would be excluded from being an employment termination payment. In particular, the payment does not include a genuine redundancy payment as it is considered that the termination of your employment does not involve you being dismissed from that employment. | Detailed Reasoning - Employment termination payment: Section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) states that: employment termination payment has the meaning given by section 82-130 of the ITAA 1997. Subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997 states that: A payment is an employment termination payment if: (a) it is received by you: (i) in consequence of the termination of your employment; or (ii) after another person's death, in consequence of the termination of the other person's employment; and (b) it is received no later than 12 months after that termination (but see subsection (4)); and (c) it is not a payment mentioned in section 82-135. An employment termination payment, where the payment is made during the life of a taxpayer, is known as a life benefit termination payment (subsection 82-130(2) of the ITAA 1997). To determine if the payment for termination (the Payment) you received from your employer is an employment termination payment all the conditions in section 82-130 of the ITAA 1997 will need to be satisfied. Failure to satisfy any of the conditions will result in the payment not being considered an employment termination payment. | Detailed Reasoning - Paid as a consequence of the termination of employment: It should be noted that the phrase 'in consequence of the termination of your employment' is not defined in the legislation. However, both the Courts and the Commissioner have considered the meaning of this phrase. In light of these decisions, the Commissioner discusses the meaning of the phrase in Taxation Ruling TR 2003/13 titled Income tax: eligible termination payments (ETP): payments made in consequence of the termination of any employment: meaning of the phrase 'in consequence of' (TR 2003/13). In paragraph 5 of TR 2003/13 the Commissioner states: … a payment is made in respect of a taxpayer in consequence of the termination of the employment of the taxpayer if the payment 'follows as an effect or result of' the termination. In other words, but for the termination of employment, the payment would not have been made to the taxpayer. As further stated by the Commissioner in paragraph 6 of TR 2003/13, there must be: … a causal connection between the termination and the payment, although the termination need not be the dominant cause of the payment. The question of whether a payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment will be determined by the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. The phrase in consequence of termination of employment has been interpreted by the courts in several cases. Of note are the decisions made by the High Court in Reseck v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 49 ALJR 370; (1975) 6 ALR 642; (1975) 5 ATR 538; (1975) 75 ATC 4213; (1975) 133 CLR 45 ( Reseck ) and the Full Federal Court in McIntosh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 25 ALR 557; (1979) 10 ATR 13; (1979) 45 FLR 279; (1979) 79 ATC 4325 ( McIntosh ). In Reseck Justice Gibbs stated: Within the ordinary meaning of the words, a sum is paid in consequence of the termination of employment when the payment follows as an effect or result of the termination ... It is not in my opinion necessary that the termination of the services should be the dominant cause of the payment... While Justice Jacobs stated: It was submitted that the words 'in consequence of' import a concept that the termination of the employment was the dominant cause of the payment. This cannot be so. A consequence in this context is not the same as a result. It does not import causation but rather a 'following on'. In looking at the phrase 'in consequence of' the Full Federal Court in McIntosh considered the decision in Reseck . Justice Brennan considered the judgments of Justice Gibbs and Justice Jacobs in Reseck and concluded that their Honours were both saying that a causal nexus between the termination and payment was required, though it was not necessary for the termination to be the dominant cause of the payment . Suffice it to say that both Courts' views were that for a payment to be made in consequence of the termination of employment it had to follow on as a result or effect of the termination of employment. Additionally, while it is not necessary to show that termination of employment is the sole or dominant cause, a temporal sequence alone would not be sufficient. Furthermore, in Le Grand v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1258; (2002) 124 FCR 53; (2002) 195 ALR 194; (2002) 2002 ATC 4907; (2002) 51 ATR 39 ( Le Grand ), the issue before the court was whether an amount received by the applicant as a result of accepting an offer of compromise in respect of claims brought by him against his former employer, in relation to the termination of his employment was in whole, or in part, an ETP. It was held that a settlement payment for litigation in relation to a taxpayer's dismissal was an ETP. Justice Goldberg stated: I am satisfied that there is a sufficient connection between the termination of the applicant's employment and the payment to warrant the finding that the payment was made 'in consequence of the termination' of the applicant's employment. I am satisfied that the payment was an effect or result of that termination in the sense that there was a sequence of events following the termination of the employment which had a relationship and connection which ultimately led to the payment. True it is that the payment was made not only to settle the applicant's claim for common law damages for breach of the employment agreement but also for statutory damages... Justice Goldberg concluded that the test for determining when a payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment is that which was articulated by Justice Gibbs in Reseck . Thus, for the payment to have been made in consequence of the termination of employment, the payment must follow as an effect or result of the termination of employment. As earlier stated in paragraph 6 of TR 2003/13, there must be 'a causal connection between the termination and the payment even though the termination need not be the sole or dominant cause of the payment'. The Full Federal Court in Dibb v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126; (2004) 207 ALR 151; (2004) 2004 ATC 4555; (2004) 55 ATR 786, has applied the above decisions in finding that the payment received by the taxpayer under a Deed of Release to settle various causes of action against the employer following the termination of employment was an ETP. Paragraph 31 of TR 2003/13 the Commissioner states: It is clear from the decision in Le Grand, that when a payment is made to settle a claim brought by a taxpayer for wrongful dismissal or claims of a similar nature that arise as a result of an employer terminating the employment of the taxpayer, the payment will have a sufficient causal connection with the termination of the taxpayer's employment. The payment will be taken to have been made in consequence of the termination of employment because it would not have been made but for the termination. The essence of this analysis is that if the payment follows as an effect or a result of the termination of employment, the payment will be made in consequence of the termination of employment for the purposes of subparagraph 82-130(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1997. The termination of the payment need not be the sole or dominate cause of the payment. The question of whether a payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment is determined by the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, after some discussions an offer was made to terminate your employment and make you a final payment. Your employment with your employer was terminated and the Payment was made to you in the 2010-11 income year. From the facts it is clear that the Payment was made in consequence of the termination of your employment. The termination of employment and the Payment are all intertwined and connected. Because the payment is considered to be received by your in consequence of the termination of their employment, the requirement under subparagraph 82-130(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 has been met. | Detailed Reasoning - The payment is received no later than 12 months after termination: The second condition is stated under paragraph 82-130(1)(b) of the ITAA 1997. The payment must be received within 12 months of the employee's termination of employment, unless the payment is covered by a determination exempting them from the 12 month rule. The Payment was made to you within 12 months after the termination of your employment. Therefore, the requirement of paragraph 82-130(1)(b) of the ITAA 1997 has been satisfied. | Detailed Reasoning - Not a payment mentioned in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997: Section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997 lists payments that are not employment termination payments. These include (among others): · superannuation benefits; · unused annual leave or long service leave payments; · foreign termination payments covered under Subdivision 83-D of the ITAA 1997; and · the tax free part of a genuine redundancy payment or an early retirement scheme payment. Relevant to this particular case is whether any part of the Payment represents the tax free part of a genuine redundancy payment. | Detailed Reasoning - Genuine redundancy payment: A payment made to an employee is a genuine redundancy payment if it satisfies all the criteria set out in section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997. Under subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, four criteria must be satisfied: · The payment must be received in consequence of a termination. · That termination must involve an employee being dismissed from employment. · That dismissal must be caused by the redundancy of the employee's position. · The redundancy payment must be made genuinely because of a redundancy. | Detailed Reasoning - Payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment: As explained earlier, it is evident that the Payment made to you was made in consequence of the termination of your employment. The termination of employment and the Payment are all intertwined and connected. If not for the termination of employment, the Payment would not have been made. | Detailed Reasoning - Dismissal and Redundancy: The Explanatory Memorandum to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No.3) 1984 which inserted former section 27F, which dealt with bona fide redundancy payments, into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) states at page 91: The terms "dismissal" and "redundancy" are not defined in the legislation and, therefore, should be given their ordinary meanings. "Dismissal" carries with it the concept of the involuntary (on the taxpayer's part) termination of employment. "Redundancy" carries the concept that the requirements of the employer for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where they were so employed, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish. Redundancy, however, would not extend to the dismissal of an employee for personal or disciplinary reasons or for reasons that the employee was inefficient.' Consequently, it is necessary to consider the ordinary meaning of the terms 'dismissal' and 'redundancy' and the meaning the judicial authorities have ascribed to them. The Commissioner has issued Taxation Ruling TR 2009/2 (TR 2009/2), titled Income Tax: genuine redundancy payments which provides guidance on the factors to be considered in the interpretation of section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997. Paragraph 18 of TR 2009/2 discusses what constitutes a dismissal: 18. Dismissal is a particular mode of employment termination. It requires a decision to terminate employment at the employer's initiative without the consent of the employee. This stands in contrast to employment that is terminated at the initiative of the employee, for example in the case of resignation. A payment is classified as a genuine redundancy payment only upon meeting all of the requirements set under section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997 and dismissal only forms part of those requirements. Paragraphs 24, 25 and 28 of TR 2009/2 provide the following in relation to the meaning of redundancy: 24. As is the case in determining if there is a dismissal, the reason for a dismissal is to be established in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The redundancy of the relevant position must be the prevailing or most influential reason for the dismissal if there is more than one contributing cause. 25. An employee's position is redundant when an employer determines that it is superfluous to the employer's needs and the employer does not want the position to be occupied by anyone. Accordingly, it is fundamentally the employer's decision that a position is redundant. On occasion the decision may be unavoidable due to the circumstances surrounding the employer's operations. … 28. A dismissal is not caused by redundancy where personal acts or default are the prevailing or most influential cause for the termination. For example, a person may be dismissed due to unsatisfactory performance or behaviour. It is clear from a termination contract made to you that you have resigned from your position with your employer. The decision to terminate your employment was initiated and made by you. You were not dismissed involuntarily nor does the contract mention your position being made redundant. Therefore, the termination of your employment does not involve you being dismissed from that employment and subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997 has not been satisfied. | Detailed Reasoning - Further conditions for a genuine redundancy payment: Subsection 83-175(2) of the ITAA 1997 sets out further criteria that must be satisfied for a payment to be regarded as a genuine redundancy payment. The first condition requires that the taxpayer is dismissed before the earlier of the day the taxpayer turns 65 or the day they reach a particular age or completed a particular period of service that would have terminated the taxpayer's employment. The second condition requires that if the dismissal were not at arms length, that the payment does not exceed the amount that could be reasonably expected to be made if the dismissal were at arms length. The third condition is that at the time of dismissal, there was no arrangement between the employee and the employer, or between the employer and another person, to employ the employee after the dismissal. A further requirement, as set out in subsection 83-175(3) of the ITAA 1997, is that no part of the payment was received by the employee in lieu of superannuation benefits to which the employee may have become entitled at the time the payment was received or at a later date. In addition, subsection 83-175(4) of the ITAA 1997 provides that a payment is not a genuine redundancy payment if it is a payment mentioned in section 82-135 (apart from paragraph 82-135(e)). The above conditions have not been considered in this case as you have not satisfied subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997. Therefore, no part of the Payment is a genuine redundancy payment under section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997. Hence, the Payment is an employment termination payment under subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997 | Detailed Reasoning - Tax Treatment of the payment as a Life Benefit Termination Payment (LBTP):: An employment termination payment will comprise of the following components: (a) Tax free component - this includes the pre-July 83 segment (if any) and/or the invalidity segment (if any); and (b) Taxable component - the amount remaining after deducting the tax free component from the total payment. The tax free component is not assessable income and is not exempt income. The taxable component is included, in full, as assessable income. The taxable component is subject to tax, depending on the person's age when the Payment is received. For a person who has not reached their preservation age, the taxable component of the LBTP is taxed at 30% plus Medicare levy for amounts below the employment termination payment cap of $160,000 for the 2010-2011 income year, and at the top marginal rate for the amount above this cap. The taxable components of all LBTPs received in an income year are counted towards this cap. Any tax-free amounts are not counted towards the cap. Employment termination payments cannot be rolled over into a complying superannuation fund, complying approved deposit fund (ADF) or to a retirement savings account (RSA) provider.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet. | You commenced employment with your employer in the 2003-04 income year. | You believed that in the period leading up to the termination of your employment your employer were reducing their operations and it was unlikely they would require a person in your position. | It was agreed you would terminate your employment. | Your employment was terminated in the 2010-11 income year. | The termination contract states have resigned from your position with your employer and the decision to terminate your employment was initiated and made by you. | In the 2010-11 income year a payment (the Payment) was made to you less applicable taxes.