Private ruling: International organisations privileges and immunities
Date of advice: 3 December 2025
Published: 27 January 2026

Ruling: Q1: Is income you received from the international organisation (the Organisation) for services you providedexempt from taxation under the provisions of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (IOPI Act) and sections 6-15 and 6-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A1: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You are an Australian citizen and were an Australian resident for taxation purposes for the duration of the ruling period. You were engaged to work as an external consultant for the Organisation. You were paid a daily rate for each day worked. You undertook the work remotely from Australia for most of the days you worked. You worked from the Organisation's head office in Country A for a small proportion of the total number of days you worked. You have provided a letter from the Organisation detailing the deliverables of your engagement, which were to: (i) investigate and assess an internal matter, and (ii) document your findings in a report. The letter also states that your specific responsibilities included: • Conducting interviews. • Reviewing and analysing documentation. • Attending meetings. • Providing updates to the Organisation. • Documenting your findings in a report. The investigation you conducted related solely to occurrences in Country A, and was used only for internal purposes by the Organisation. Once you completed the contract you were required to return all work materials relating to the assignment. You did not have anyone reporting to you. The position you held was created specifically to undertake the contracted assignment, and did not exist prior to, nor after, your engagement with the Organisation. You did not have any leave entitlements or other similar benefits while undertaking the engagement. You were free to determine your own working hours, however the position required you to conduct interviews and meetings during the Organisation's head office's business hours Country A You were obliged to correct/revise your work in the case of any errors. You were reimbursed for all travel and related miscellaneous expenses. Expenses you incurred for telephone and internet usage were not reimbursed. You were required to provide your own computer, phone and other work tools. You also used equipment provided by the Organisation. You were not required to interact with or represent the Organisation to any external people or bodies in your role besides on two occasions when you conveyed messages to an external party at the Organisation's request.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 6-5 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 6-15(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 6-20 | International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 subsection 6(1) | International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 subparagraph 6(1)(d)(i) | International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 subparagraph 6(1)(e)(i) | International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule | International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule

Reasons for decision: Detailed Reasoning - Assessable income: Section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) provides that the assessable income of an Australian resident includes ordinary income derived directly or indirectly from all sources during the income year. This includes income derived from all overseas sources. However, subsection 6-15(2) of the ITAA 1997 provides that if an amount is exempt income, then it is not assessable income. An amount is exempt income under section 6-20 of the ITAA 1997, if it is made exempt from income tax by a provision of either the ITAA 1997 or another Commonwealth law. This includes income received by a person connected with an international organisation which is exempted by the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (IOPI Act). | Detailed Reasoning - Exemption from taxation of income under the IOPI Act: The IOPI Act provides that income which tax residents of Australia receive from designated international organisations may be exempted from income tax in Australia. to the extent that the following elements are satisfied: • the income is received from an international organisation to which the IOPI Act applies; • the person is connected with the international organisation in one of the specified ways; and • the conditions and other particulars provided in the regulations for the international organisation are satisfied in relation to the income of the person. Subsection 3(1) of the IOPI Act defines an 'international organisation to which this Act applies' as an organisation that is declared by regulations to be an international organisation to which the IOPI Act applies, and includes a body established by such an organisation. Regulations made under the IOPI Act are therefore required to effect the IOPI Act for an international organisation, and may also contain provisions which alter the application of the privileges and immunities provided for under the IOPI Act. Regulation x of the Organisation's Regulations (the Regulations) confirms that the Organisation is an organisation to which the IOPI Act applies. It is noted that although Australia has acceded to both the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations , it is the IOPI Act along with the Regulations that apply to determine whether the payments an individual receives are exempt from taxation in Australia. Subsection 6(1) and Part I of the Second to the Fifth Schedules to the IOPI Act inclusive set out the taxation exemptions that can be conferred upon certain persons currently connected with an international organisation. This includes an exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments received from the international organisation for: • a person who 'holds an office' in an international organisation (but who is not a holder of a high office) under paragraph 6(1)(d) and item 2 of Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the IOPI Act; and • a person who is 'serving on a committee or is participating in the work or performing a mission' under paragraph 6(1)(e)(i) and item 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act. Subregulation x(x) of the Regulations states that a person who holds an office in the Organisation has such of the privileges and immunities specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the IOPI Act, of which Item 4 is an exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments received from the organisation. Subregulation x(x) of the Regulations states a person who is serving on a committee or is participating in the work of the Organisation, or is performing, whether alone or jointly with other persons, a mission on behalf of the Organisation, has the privileges and immunities specified in paragraphs 2, 2A and 5 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act. Relevantly, paragraph 2A provides an exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments received from the organisation to such persons. Subregulation x(x) of the Regulations; however, modifies subregulation x(x) such that the exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments does not apply to the extent which they are for services rendered in Australia, unless the person is not an Australian citizen, and came to Australia solely for the purpose of serving on a committee or participating in the work of the Organisation, or performing a mission on behalf of the Organisation. Salaries and emoluments received for services rendered in Australia by a person who is serving on a committee or participating in the work of the Organisation, or is performing a mission on behalf of the Organisation, will therefore be assessable for Australian citizens. | Detailed Reasoning - Defining "services rendered": The term 'rendered' is not defined in the Regulations and therefore takes on its ordinary meaning. The Oxford English dictionary defines the term 'rendered' to mean to 'provide or give'. It is our view that this phrasing is interchangeable with the meaning of 'to exercise'. We take a similar view to the approach taken in relation to the exercising of employment under the Income Tax Treaties given force of law through the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 . In respect of this, in Case T41 86 ATC 336 at 340 the Taxation Board of Review stated: ... common sense would indicate that an employee is exercising his employment where he is performing the work involved in such employment and I am unaware of any authorities to the contrary. The view that an employee is exercising employment where work is being performed or where they are carrying out their duties is also supported by the Commentary to the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (The OECD Convention) , upon which the Australian Income Tax Treaties are modelled. Paragraph 1 of the Commentary on Article 15 of the OECD Convention states: Paragraph 1 establishes the general rule as to the taxation of income from employment (other than pensions), namely that such income is taxable in the State where the employment is actually exercised . The issue of whether or not services are provided in the exercise of an employment may sometimes give rise to difficulties ... Employment is exercised in the place where the employee is physically present when performing the activities for which the employment income is paid. One consequence of this would be that a resident of a Contracting State who derived remuneration, in respect of an employment, from sources in the other State could not be taxed in that other State in respect of that remuneration merely because the results of this work were exploited in the other State (emphasis added). The Australian Courts have taken the same view on the issue of determining where work exercised under service contracts are rendered. In the High Court's precedential decision in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v xx [1957] HCA 73, Williams J summarised the Court's reasoning when he stated: ...the locality of the source of income derived from personal exertion in the capacity of employee or in relation to any services rendered surely must be where such personal exertion took place... Dependent personal services provided under service contracts are therefore rendered or exercised where the person is physically located. We do not agree with the argument that work performed under a service contract is rendered or exercised at the place where the individual's income producing activity is given effect. This misguided argument postulates the outcome that if an individual is physically located in Australia but the results of their work only have effect in a different state, the service would be regarded as being rendered in that other state. This outcome is contrary to both domestic common law and the correct interpretation of international Income Tax Treaty provisions. This view applies to income which may be exempt from taxation under paragraph 6(1)(e)(i) and item 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act and subregulation x(x) of the Regulations such that subregulation x(x) removes the exemption from taxation in Australia on income which is received by Australian citizens and some non-citizen residents for work conducted while physically located in Australia, regardless of the fact that the results of the work may have effect in a different state. | Detailed Reasoning - The Commissioner's view on the meaning of office holder: The terms 'office' and 'office holder' are not defined by the IOPI Act or the ITAA 1997 and therefore, they take their ordinary meaning. The Commissioner's view on the meaning of office holder is set out in draft Taxation Ruling TR 2025/1 Income tax: exempt income of international organisations and persons connected with them . Paragraph 29 of TR 2025/1 sets out four positive and two negative criteria the Commissioner takes into consideration when determining whether someone is an office holder or not. This is a question of fact, considered on a case-by-case basis. The criteria outlined in paragraph 29 are: • 4 positive criteria: - a position to which certain duties attach - the office must exist within the international organisation regardless of the individual who occupies the office from time to time, that is if an individual vacates that office, the office continues to exist to be filled by another individual - duties relating to the performance of the organisation's functions - the office must have identifiable duties, functions and responsibilities or powers - a level of authority with respect to the organisation - the position of the person within the international organisation, and the duties and authority associated with it, should make it apparent why the privileges and immunities are conferred • 2 negative criteria, the presence of which would indicate the person is not an office holder: - the position places the person outside the organisational structure - the position does not provide the person with any defined duties or authority with respect to the organisation and its functions - for example, the role is merely an advisory function. Paragraph 34 of TR 2025/1 provides an example of a person who is an office holder: 34. xx is employed by an organisation that is an international organisation covered by the IOPI Act (as per the Regulations for that organisation). The Regulations provide that income received from the organisation by an office holder of the organisation is income tax exempt and that there are no further conditions or particulars that apply to that exemption. xx leads a team that provides ongoing professional advice which the organisation relies on to carry out its core functions. xx has significant organisational responsibilities and functions, including developing organisational strategy and managing employees. He is able to engage and enter contracts and make financial commitments on behalf of the organisation. Chris is a person who is an office holder for the purposes of the IOPI Act. Conversely, Paragraph 36 provides an example of a person who is not an office holder: 36. xx, a management consultant, is engaged by an international organisation on a short-term contract to undertake an operational review of that organisation. xx's sole task is to complete the review, with her engagement ending upon its completion. She has the legal status of an independent contractor, serving in her individual capacity and with no authority or other right to enter into any legal or financial commitments on behalf of the international organisation. The position that xx occupies does not exist either before or after her engagement. None of the functions she performs will continue to be performed after she completes her engagement. xx is not a person who is an office holder for the purposes of the IOPI Act and the income xx receives for the engagement is not exempt from income tax. The Commissioner's view on the meaning of office holder is well supported by the case law, with recent decisions establishing a clear definition as exemplified by the contrasting examples in paragraphs 35 and 36 of TR 2025/1. | Detailed Reasoning - The case law on the meaning of office holder: In determining who is an office holder, it is not enough to simply be an employee and thereby be regarded as an office holder. An office holder is someone who has identifiable duties, functions, responsibilities or powers to carry out. It does not include an employee who is merely following the command of a higher ranking person. This does not take away from the fact that an office holder may be an employee; it illustrates however that a person who is an employee is not necessarily or automatically to be taken to be an office holder. As discussed in paragraphs [31] and [34] of Jayasinghe [2017] HCA 256 ( Jayasinghe case), the term 'office' cannot be defined by reference to permanence or succession. Whether a person holds or performs the duties of an office in an international organisation concerns the relationship between the person and that organisation. As per paragraph [37] of the Jayasinghe case, the substance of the terms of the engagement of the person and the relationship between that engagement and the organisation's performing its functions must be considered. Whether someone is an office holder is a question of fact, considered on a case-by-case basis. It should be clear from the duties and authority associated with the person's position within the international organisation why the privileges and immunities are conferred. As per paragraph [38] of the Jayasinghe case, a person is unlikely to be an 'office holder' if their terms of engagement place them outside the organisational structure and do not include defined duties or authority in relation to the organisation and its functions. This is consistent with the purpose of the IOPI Act to confer privileges and immunities to assist organisations to perform their functions, rather than to personally benefit persons connected with the organisation (see paragraph [39] of the Jayasinghe case and paragraph [54] of Macoun v. FCT (2015) 257 CLR 519). The High Court also affirmed the Commissioner's view outlined in paragraph 28 of TR 2025/1 in paragraph [52] of the Jayasinghe case, where it was stated: ... a person who works as an employee for a relevant international organisation will not be a "person who holds an office" if that person is also either locally engaged by the organisation and paid at an hourly rate or engaged by the organisation as an expert or a consultant... In Edwards v. Clinch [1982] AC 845 it was held that an office was a position of authority to which duties and functions are attached; an independent post, with some degree of permanence, to which successive people can be appointed. In Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Sealy (1987) 19 ATR 582 at 286; 87 ATC 5076, which concerned a managing partner of a grazing partnership, Pincus J said: The word office has a range of meanings. In some contexts, it refers to a position of authority in a governmental or other public organisation. It is difficult to think of any reason why the legislature should have intended to confine the concession to instances in which the terminated position is one of a public character or of any high degree of permanency. Presumably, no one would dispute that the position of managing director of a public company could be regarded as an office. In AAT Case 8603 93 ATC 148; 25 ATR 1082, Deputy President BJ McMahon dealt with the case of a taxpayer who had been an Inspector of Schools and who became (when that position phased out) a Cluster Director. Paragraphs [14] and [15] read as follows: 14. The word "office" is a word that had been considered in many cases but no satisfactory definition has emerged. As was pointed out in Grealy's case [ Grealy v. Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 24 FCR 405; (1989) 20 ATR 403; (1989) 89 ATC 4192] the word usually connotes a position of defined authority in an organisation, such as a director of a company, or a tertiary education body. Their Honours held (at 4197 column 2) that it was not a word normally applicable to a relatively low level employee, such as a university lecturer. As the court observed the applicant, like many holders of professional employment, is not made an office holder merely because her position has a name. 15. This view was consistently taken by the Boards of Review. For example, in Case K4 , 78 ATC 29 [(1978) 22 CTBR (NS) 212], Mr Dempsey suggested that an office connotes something more than substantial, something more in the nature of a continuing executive position, the holder of which has distinct responsibilities. In Grealy's case itself, their Honours noted that the word "office" usually connoted a position of defined authority. [additional case citations added] AAT Case 12,178 (1997) 97 ATC 407; (1997) 37 ATR 1174 concerned a taxpayer who received a payment in respect of unused sick leave when he resigned from his position as a Branch Manager after having successfully won a position of Division Director for the same employer (a local council). In determining the case, one of the issues raised was whether the taxpayer was the holder of an office and whether a retirement or termination had occurred. In that case, Senior Member J Block stated: The test as to whether a position is an office will no doubt usually be one involving questions of fact and degree... In his findings, Senior Member Block also referred to a few previous cases which looked at the issue of office and at (ATC) 421; (ATR) 1189, he made the following observation: In Great Western Railway Co v. Bater [1920] 3 KB 266 Rowlett J had held that an office was "a subsisting, permanent, substantive position which had an existence independent of the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders". I consider, with respect, that the meaning attributed to the term "office" by Deputy President Thompson in W31 [ Case No VT 87/3438 (1989) 20 ATR 3509; (1989) 89 ATC 307] is for Australian purposes, correct. That test would require that it is a position to which "duties are attached, especially a place of trust, authority or service under constituted authority". It is thus clear that the restricted UK view is narrow, when contrasted with the less restricted Australian approach. [additional case citations added] Refer also to Hamilton v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 1812 where the taxpayer was found not to be an office holder of the International Monetary Fund in relation to work he undertook for that organisation. In that case the taxpayer was not engaged in the ongoing discharge of a core function of the IMF. Significantly, the appointments under which he did work did not exist in the organisational structure of the IMF, in the sense that his duties were limited to the performance of specific tasks, and the positions for which he was engaged did not exist independently of his appointment to the relevant assignments. | Detailed Reasoning - The Commissioners view on the meaning of serving on a committee, participating in the work, or performing a mission of an international organisation: The IOPI Act may exempt from tax the income of a person who is 'serving on a committee or is participating in the work or performing a mission' on behalf of an international organisation. The exemption is provided for in paragraph 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act. Paragraph 39 of TR 2025/1 Income tax: exempt income of international organisations and persons connected with them (TR 2025/1) states that the references to the activities 'serving on a committee', 'participating in the work of an international organisation' or 'performing a mission on behalf of an international organisation' are interpreted using their ordinary meaning. Paragraph 40 expounds the meaning of the phrase "participating in the work": ...participating in the work of an international organisation requires that person to undertake 'the work of the organisation'. This requires identifying what is 'the work of the organisation'. Whether or not the activity undertaken is properly characterised as 'the work of the organisation' will usually be identified by reference to the central object of that international organisation. For example, a person working for an international organisation whose mission is to prevent hunger and starvation would be participating in the work of the international organisation if they are working at a food aid distribution station set up by the organisation in a country where severe food shortages were occurring. It would not be satisfied merely because a person works for the international organisation. For example, a person who merely works in the administration of an international organisation is not, as such, participating in 'the work' of the organisation. Paragraph 41 clarifies the context required for an engagement with an international organisation to be regarded as "performing a mission": ...to perform a mission on behalf of an international organisation requires the person doing that to represent the organisation to someone else. This connotates some interaction between the international organisation and someone else where the person acts on behalf of the organisation, even if that is only temporarily. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: The Organisation is an organisation to which the IOPI Act applies, therefore the income you received from the Organisation may be exempt from taxation under the IOPI Act if you were an office holder, or were serving on a committee or is participating in the work or performing a mission for the Organisation, subject to the application of the Regulations. | Detailed Reasoning - Were you an office holder?: You were an external consultant engaged to operate outside the organisational structure of the Organisation. You performed an advisory function and the position you held was created specifically for the investigation you conducted, and ceased to exist at the conclusion of your engagement with the Organisation. Your position had no defined duties or powers with respect to the function of the Organisation and did not meet any of the positive criteria elaborated in paragraph 29 of TR 2025/1. The position did, however, meet both negative criteria. Therefore, you did not hold an office of the Organisation, and income you earned from your engagement with the Organisation is not exempt from taxation under paragraph 6(1)(d) and item 2 of Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the IOPI Act. | Detailed Reasoning - Were you serving on a committee or participating in the work or performing a mission for the xx?: You were engaged to conduct interviews, analyse documents, and prepare a report for an internal investigation for the Organisation. On two occasions you relayed communication from the Organisation to an external entity specifically relating to the investigation. You did not represent the Organisation to any diplomatic or political entities, nor did you have agency to act on behalf of the Organisation to any external party. You were not involved in a committee of the Organisation. In accordance with paragraph 40 of TR 2025/1, the activities you undertook will only be regarded as 'participating in the work of the Organisation if it aligns with the central object of that international organisation. On the facts presented, the Commissioner has concluded that: • You did not serve on a committee for the Organisation. • You were not participating in the work of the Organisation as the investigation you conducted had no direct connection to the central objective of the Organisation. • You were not performing a mission for the Organisation as you did not represent the Organisation in any of the activities you undertook. As you were not serving on a committee or participating in the work or performing a mission for the Organisation, the income you received from the Organisation will not be exempt from taxation under paragraph 6(1)(e)(i) and item 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act. | Detailed Reasoning - Where were your services rendered?: While income you received from the Organisation is not exempt from taxation under paragraph 6(1)(e)(i) and item 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act, for completeness we have examined the manner in which subregulation x(x) of the Regulations would apply to your case. As you were an Australian citizen and resident for taxation purposes at the time you earned income from the Organisation, subregulation x(x) would apply such that amounts that you received from the Organisation for work you performed while physically located in Australia would have been excluded from the tax exemption afforded under paragraph 6(1)(e)(i) and item 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: Your service contract with the Organisation did not engage you in a manner such that the privileges and immunities conferred under 6(1)(d) and item 2 of Part I of the Fourth Schedule or paragraph 6(1)(e)(i) and item 2A of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the IOPI Act apply to you. Therefore, the income you received in relation to your engagement with the Organisation is assessable under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997 as it is not exempt from taxation under the provisions of the IOPI Act and section 6-20 of the ITAA 1997.