Private ruling: Employment termination payment - genuine redundancy
Published: March 2015
Ruling period: Income year ending 30 June 2015
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2014

Ruling: Q1: Is any part of the severance payment to be paid to the Taxpayer a genuine redundancy payment under section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A1: No

Relevant facts and circumstances: The Taxpayer commenced employment with the Employer several years ago. The terms and conditions of the Taxpayer's employment were set out in an Offer of Employment made to the Taxpayer, hereafter referred to as the Contract. The Taxpayer accepted that the terms set out in the Contract constituted the entire understanding between the Taxpayer and the Employer in relation to the terms and conditions of employment. The Contract specified that employment was on a Fixed Term - Full Time basis for a period ending two years from the commencement with further possible offers up to duration of two years depending the Employer's funding and needs. At the end of the two years, the Contract was varied, and the Taxpayer was offered a new fixed-term. All the other terms and conditions of the Taxpayer's employment remained the same. Two years later, the Contract was again varied and Taxpayer was offered a new fixed-term. All the other terms and conditions of the Taxpayer's employment remained the same During the 2014-15 income year, the Taxpayer's work area was abolished. Consequently, the Taxpayer's employment is to cease on the end date specified in their Contract, which is during the 2014-15 income year. In accordance with Employer's enterprise agreement (the Agreement), the Employer is required to pay to the Taxpayer a severance payment. The Taxpayer expects to receive the severance payment within 12 months of the termination of their employment.

Relevant legislative provisions: 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 Subparagraph 82-130(1)(a)(ii) | 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 Section 82-135 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Paragraph 82-135(e) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 83-170 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-170(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-170(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-170(3) | 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 Paragraph 83-175(2)(a) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subparagraph 83-175(2)(a)(i) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subparagraph 83-175(2)(a)(ii) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Paragraph 83-175(2)(b) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Paragraph 83-175(2)(c) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(3) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(4) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 955-1(1)

Reasons for decision: Summary: The Taxpayer's employment is to terminate on a date mutually agreed to with the Employer and not because the Taxpayer is being dismissed at the initiative of the Employer without the Taxpayer's consent. Therefore, the severance payment that the Taxpayer will receive on termination of their employment with the Employer will not be a genuine redundancy payment. The payment to be received by the Taxpayer will be an employment termination payment (ETP) in accordance with subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997 . | Detailed Reasoning - Employment termination payments: By virtue of subsection 995-1(1) of ITAA 1997, employment termination payments are defined in subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997, which 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. To determine if a payment is an employment termination payment (ETP), all the conditions in subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997 must be satisfied. Failure to satisfy any of the conditions under subsection 82-130(1) will result in the payment not being considered an employment termination payment. Furthermore, any termination payments received more than 12 months after the termination will be taxed as ordinary income at marginal tax rates, unless the taxpayer is covered by a determination exempting them from the 12 month rule. | Detailed Reasoning - Paid 'in consequence of' the termination of employment: For a payment to be treated as an employment termination payment, the first condition that must be met is that the payment is made 'in consequence of' the termination of the Taxpayer's employment. The phrase 'in consequence of' is not defined in the ITAA 1997. However, the courts have interpreted the phrase in a number of cases. Taking into account the courts decisions on the meaning of the phrase, the Commissioner's view on the meaning and application of the 'in consequence of' test are set out in Taxation Ruling TR 2003/13 (TR 2003/13). While TR 2003/13 considered the meaning of the phrase 'in consequence of' in the context of the eligible termination payments, TR 2003/13 can still be relied upon as both the former provision under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the current provision under the ITAA 1997 both use the term 'in consequence of' in the same manner. 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. In the present case, the Taxpayer's employment is to terminate in the 2014-15 income year when their fixed-term contract expires. Consequently, the Employer will pay to the Taxpayer a severance payment as required under the Agreement. In other words, but for the termination of the Taxpayer's employment, the payment would not be made to the Taxpayer. Therefore, it is considered that the payment will be made to the Taxpayer in consequence of the termination of their employment with the Employer. As the Taxpayer is expected to receive the severance payment within 12 months after the termination of their employment, the payment will be an ETP unless it is a payment mentioned in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997. Based on the information provided, the only payment listed in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997 which may be relevant in this case, and thus requires consideration, is the part of a genuine redundancy payment worked out under section 83-170 of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Genuine redundancy payments: In accordance with subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, a genuine redundancy payment is so much of a payment that: • is received by an employee who is dismissed from employment because the employee's position is genuinely redundant; and • exceeds the amount that could reasonably be expected to be received by the employee in consequence of the voluntary termination of their employment at the time of the dismissal. | Detailed Reasoning - Meaning of genuine redundancy: The requirements to be satisfied before any payment made to a person whose employment is terminated qualifies for treatment as a genuine redundancy payment under section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997 are discussed in Taxation Ruling TR 2009/2 (TR 2009/2). With regard to the first requirement set out in subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, the Commissioner considers that there are four necessary components within this requirement: • the payment must be received in consequence of an employee's termination; • the termination must involve the employee being dismissed from employment; • dismissal must be caused by the redundancy of the employee's position; and • the redundancy payment must be made genuinely because of a redundancy. Each of these requirements will be considered in turn below. | Detailed Reasoning - Payment must be received 'in consequence of' an employee's termination: For the reasons stated above, it is considered that, in this case, the payment was received by the Taxpayer in consequence of the termination of their employment. | Detailed Reasoning - Termination must involve the employee being 'dismissed' from employment: The term 'dismissal' is not defined in the ITAA 1997 therefore, consistent with basic principles of statutory interpretation, its meaning must be determined according to the ordinary meaning of the words, having regard to the context in which they appear. Accordingly, the Commissioner's view, as stated in Taxation Ruling TR 2009/2, is that 'dismissal' means 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 'dismissal' would not ordinarily occur for an employee employed under a fixed-term contract. In paragraph 284 of TR 2009/2 the Commissioner states: It would normally be the case that someone employed on a contract for a set period could not be dismissed at the end of that period. Their employment would simply terminate because an arrangement stipulated that the employment would cease at that time [emphasis added]. In other words, under a fixed-term contract the decision to terminate employment could not be said to be at the employer's initiative because the employee and the employer would have a mutual understanding at the time the contract was signed that the employment would end at a pre-determined date. Thus, a 'dismissal' would not normally occur when an employee's employment ends at the expiration of a fixed-term contract. However, in paragraph 37 of TR 2009/2 the Commissioner states: However, some rolling fixed-term contracts may, as a matter of fact, establish an ongoing employment relationship. The reference to rolling contracts contemplates the situation where fixed-term contracts are renewed on one or more occasions following the expiry of the contracted term. However, where a contract is not renewed at the end of a contractually stipulated term, evidence is required to displace the express terms of the contract and establish an ongoing employment relationship [emphasis added] . This is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Additionally, in paragraph 287 of TR 2009/2 the Commissioner states: The question of whether an employment relationship continues to exist after what would otherwise be its expiration is a question of fact. If a set term is expressly stipulated in an employment contract, the Commissioner considers that this will govern the relationship unless implied terms to the contrary can be established [emphasis added] . In the present case, the set term is expressly stipulated in the Contract. Taxpayer's employment is to end on the end date specified in their Contract and will not be renewed due to the Taxpayer's work area being abolished. The Taxpayer has acknowledged that the Contract constitutes the entire agreement as it relates to the terms and conditions of their employment, and there is no evidence to indicate that the express terms of the Contract should be displaced and that an employment relationship, in fact, exists. Accordingly, the Taxpayer's employment will be terminated on the end date specified in their Contract as previously agreed with the Employer. As such, it cannot be said that the decision to terminate employment was at the Employer's initiative without the consent of the Taxpayer. Therefore, it is considered that the Taxpayer will not be 'dismissed' from their employment when their employment is terminated. As the Taxpayer will not have satisfied all the requirements of subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, the severance payment that they will receive will not be a genuine redundancy payment and the exception in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997 does not apply Therefore, the severance payment that the Taxpayer will receive will be an ETP in accordance with subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997.