Private ruling: Genuine redundancy
Published: March 2015
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2014.
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2013.

Ruling: Q1: Will any part of the payment received on termination of employment under a deed of release be a tax-free part of a genuine redundancy payment under section 83-170 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997? | A1: Yes

Relevant facts and circumstances: Your client is less than 60 years old. From the 2007-08 income year to the 2013-14 income year your client was employed by an employer (the Employer) as a musician within their band unit. During the 2013-14 income year, a decision was made by the employer to close the band unit. The Employer offered five options to redeploy impacted staff. Four options involved re-deployment in other areas of the business. The fifth option was a Career Transition Incentive package (CTIP). Those who accepted the CTIP were required to agree not to seek or accept re-employment of any other fee for service from any SPS employer for a period of either three calendar years or one calendar year depending on the employer. Your client has stated the CTIP arose due to there being no provision for redundancy within the Enterprise Agreement or the Act under which they were hired. Your client accepted the CTIP and resigned their position. The effective date of resignation being during the 2013-14 income year. Shortly after, your client received their CTIP payment which comprised of the following: Normal salary A Uniform allowance B Accrued annual leave -C Accrued long service leave D Life benefit ETP E Total F From the above, G was withheld as tax. Your client's superable salary as at release date was Z.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 83-80. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 83-85. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 83-170. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-170(2). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 83-175(1). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 83-175.

Reasons for decision: Summary: The amount of $E that your client received upon termination of their employment is a genuine redundancy payment. Of this amount, $X is non-assessable, non-exempt income as it represents the tax-free part of a genuine redundancy payment. The amount of your client's CTIP payment in excess of their tax-free amount, being $Y, will be taxed as an employment termination payment. | Detailed Reasoning - Genuine redundancy payment: A payment made to an employee is a genuine redundancy payment (GRP) if it satisfies all the conditions set out in section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997). This section states: (1) A genuine redundancy payment is so much of a payment received by an employee who is dismissed from employment because the employees 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 his or her employment at the time of dismissal. (2) A genuine redundancy payment must satisfy the following conditions: (a) the employee is dismissed before the earlier of the following: (i) the day he or she turned 65; (ii) if the employees employment would have terminated when he or she reached a particular age or completed a particular period of service the day he or she would reach the age or complete the period of service (as the case may be); (b) if the dismissal was not at arms length the payment does not exceed the amount that could reasonably be expected to be made if the dismissal were at arms length; (c) at the time of the dismissal, there was no arrangement between the employee and the employer, or between the employer and another person, to employ the employee after dismissal. (3) However, a genuine redundancy payment does not include any part of a payment that 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 time. Payments not covered (4) A payment is not a genuine redundancy payment if it is a payment mentioned in section 82-135 (apart from paragraph 82-135(e)). Subsection 82-135 includes (among others): _ superannuation benefits; _ the payment of a pension or annuity; and _ unused annual leave (paragraph 82-135(c)) or long service leave payments (paragraph 82-135(d)). As such, the payment your client received for unused long service leave does not constitute part of a genuine redundancy payment pursuant to subsection 82-135(4) of the ITAA 1997. The taxation treatment of this payment will be discussed in due course. Similarly, the payments for normal salary and uniform allowance do not constitute a part of a genuine redundancy payment. These amounts are taxable on an assessment basis at your client's marginal tax rate. Whether the life benefit ETP of $E your client received will constitute a genuine redundancy payment will be addressed below. In order to satisfy the definition of a genuine redundancy payment under subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997 there must be a dismissal from employment and the dismissal must result from the positions being made genuinely redundant. The term dismissal is not defined in the ITAA 1997. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the common law or ordinary meaning of the term and the meaning the judicial authorities have ascribed to it. | Detailed Reasoning - Dismissal from employment: Taxation Ruling TR 2009/2, titled Income Tax: genuine redundancy payments , which outlines the Commissioners view of the requirements for a payment to qualify as a GRP under section 83-175 of the ITAA 1992, discusses what constitutes a 'dismissal'. In particular: 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. 22. Cases of 'constructive dismissal' are a dismissal for the purposes of subsection 83-175(1). Constructive dismissal is currently recognised to occur where the actions or behaviour of the employer in relation to the employment relationship effectively curtails the element of consent on the employee's behalf. The simplest example of constructive dismissal is where an employee resigns under threat (explicit or implicit) of dismissal. Another example is where the employee resigns after the employer offers work in an alternative position which is inappropriate given the employee's particular circumstances (for example, their skills or experience). While in form this appears to be a termination at the employee's initiative, it is recognised at law to be a dismissal. 30. In circumstances where an employee resigns after being offered alternative employment with an employer following an organisational restructure, it will be necessary to assess whether the termination of employment amounts to a constructive dismissal In your client's case, the Employer decided to close the band unit of which they were employed to reduce the number of staff. As there was no provision for redundancy within the Enterprise Agreement or the Act under which they were hired, the Employer offered five different options for impacted staff. One of which was the Career Transition Incentive package (CTIP). The facts state that your client accepted the CTIP and resigned their position, effective during the 2013-14 income year. As your client resigned after being offered alternative options, it is necessary to determine whether a constructive dismissal took place. The Commissioner expands on the issue of a constructive dismissal at paragraphs 256 to 258 of TR 2009/2: 256. As recognised in Smith , the concept of dismissal extends to 'constructive dismissal'. This refers to a termination that gives the appearance of employee consent, but in substance reflects the same circumstances as would have been the case if the employee had been dismissed - that is, an employer initiated termination without the employee's consent. In Blaikie v. South Australian Superannuation Board , Olsson J, quoting his own decision in R v. Prince Alfred College stated: The fact that the act of resignation subsumed the act of dismissal does not alter the essential character of the transactions between the parties. By virtue of the implicit waiver of the original act of formal dismissal by the employer, the applicant was, in reality, in a position in which he had resigned because he had been given virtually no option but to do so ... 257. For example, if an employer is reorganising or downsizing their business or company, an employee may be offered alternative employment that is not appropriate given the employee's qualifications or experience, or is in a particularly inconvenient location for the employee. 258. An employee who chooses to resign in these circumstances may not be considered to freely consent to their resignation as they had no other option other than to resign. This would be an instance of constructive dismissal. It would appear that as the Employer offered your client four different redeployment options in addition to the CTIP, a constructive dismissal has not taken place. However, it is necessary to first analyse the intention of the Employer and second, assess the appropriateness of each option offered to your client with reference to their qualifications and experience. According to the facts the employer took steps to reduce the number of staff. In doing so, the Employer closed the band unit of which your client was employed as a musician, rendering their position redundant. However, as there was no provision for redundancy within the Enterprise Agreement or the Act under which your client was hired, they could not be made redundant. Rather, your client was offered options to be redeployed within the organisation. As the overall intention was to reduce the number of staff, it is feasible to argue that had there been a redundancy provision available for your client's employment type, their employment would have been terminated under that provision. In the absence of such provision however, the Employer offered your client various redeployment options. As your client accepted the CTIP and subsequently resigned from their employment, it gives the appearance of employee consent. However on the whole, the substance of the arrangement more appropriately reflects an employer initiated termination without employee consent. This is especially the case if the redeployment options offered are considered inappropriate based on the employee's qualifications and experience, as discussed below. From the facts it is clear the first two re-deployment options offered to your client were not related to their skills and experience as a musician as they would require your client to undergo extensive training and essentially an entire career change. With regards to the third option, whilst more closely aligned with your client's experience as a musician, it is still considered unreasonable and inappropriate given only 15 positions were made available for the purposes of redeployment. The fourth option is also considered inappropriate. Whilst an administrative role would require minimal training, it is not related to your client's role as a musician. Further, this option required your client to resign their position and be included in a redeployment pool with other employees. From this pool your client would be required to apply for administrative positions when they became available. As this option did not guarantee your client a position with the Employer, the impracticality of choosing this option is clear. When considering the Employer's intention together with the redeployment options offered to your client it is clear the substance of the employment termination more accurately reflects a dismissal. That is, the Employer initiated the termination of your client's employment without their consent. It is feasible to conclude that the redeployment options were only offered to your client as there was no redundancy provision available to the Employer. It is concluded that the termination of your client's employment constitutes a constructive dismissal and therefore a 'dismissal' for the purposes of subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997. The remaining conditions under section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997 are satisfied as: • Your client's position was made redundant following the closure of the band unit of which they were employed; • The amount your client received after accepting the CTIP exceeds what they would have received had they voluntarily resigned outside the redeployment process; • Your client is less than 65 years of age; • There was no arrangement between your client and the Employer or between the employer and another person, to employ your client following the termination of their employment; and • According to the payment advice, no amount was received by your client in lieu of superannuation. | Detailed Reasoning - Tax-free amount of a genuine redundancy payment: Subsection 83-170(2) of the ITAA 1997 provides that so much of the genuine redundancy payment that does not exceed the amount worked out using the formula prescribed in subsection 83-170(3) is non-assessable, non-exempt income. Any amount in excess of the tax-free amount is taxed as an employment termination payment (ETP). The formula for working out the tax-free amount is: Base amount + ( Service amount × Years of service ) For the 2013-14 income year: Base amount is $9,246; Service amount is $4,624; and Years of service is the number of whole years in the period, or sum of periods, of employment to which the payment relates. In view of the above, $X of your client's life benefit ETP of $E is non-assessable, non-exempt income under subsection 83-170(2) of the ITAA 1997. Therefore, it is not required to be included in their income tax return for the 2013-14 income year. | Detailed Reasoning - Employment termination payment: As stated previously, any amount in excess of the tax-free amount is an ETP. As such, $Y will be taxed as an ETP. As the ETP is made in connection with genuine redundancy and your client was below their preservation age on 30 June 2014, the applicable tax rate is 32% including Medicare levy. | Detailed Reasoning - Taxation treatment of unused long service payments: Unused long service leave would ordinarily be included in assessable income under section 83-80 of the ITAA 1997 and subject to marginal rates of tax. However, as this payment is made in connection with a genuine redundancy payment, section 83-85 allows a tax offset to ensure that the rate of tax on this amount does not exceed 30%. | Detailed Reasoning - Refund of tax withheld: We note $Z was withheld as tax from your client's total payment of $F. As you do not include the tax-free amount of $X in their 2013-14 income tax return and the tax on their long service leave is capped at 30%, the excess of tax withheld for the income year will be credited to your client once the tax return is processed.