Private ruling: Genuine redundancy
Date of advice: 10 August 2017
Published: November 2017
Ruling period: Income year ending 30 June 201Z
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 201Y

Ruling: A1: No

Relevant facts and circumstances: The Client is under 65 years old. The Client commenced employment as a partner with the Employer in 201X. The Employer made a decision to restructure the management team and terminate the position. The Employer has reallocated certain responsibilities across the remaining partners. The Client received a redundancy payment. No part of the payment is a payment in lieu of superannuation. At the time of the Client’s termination there was no arrangement between the Client and the Employer, or between the Employer and another person, to employ the Client after the termination.

Relevant legislative provisions: 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)

Reasons for decision: Summary: The redundancy payment to be received by the Client from the Employer is a not genuine redundancy payment as defined in section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Genuine redundancy: Under subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, a genuine redundancy payment is one received by an employee who is dismissed from employment because their position is genuinely redundant and exceeds the amount that could reasonably be expected to be received by them in consequence of the voluntary termination of their employment at the time of dismissal. 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 Income tax: genuine redundancy payments (TR 2009/2). With regard to the first requirement set out in subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, at paragraph 11 of TR 2009/2, the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) considers that there are four necessary components within this requirement: With regard to the first requirement set out in subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, at paragraph 11 of TR 2009/2, the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) considers that there are four necessary components within this requirement: ● the payment must be received in consequence of an employee's termination; ● that termination must involve the employee being dismissed from employment; ● that dismissal must be caused by the redundancy of the employee's position; and ● the redundancy payment must be made genuinely because of a redundancy. The satisfaction of this requirement establishes the essential character of the payment. However, there are further conditions that must also be satisfied before a payment can be treated as a genuine redundancy payment. Payment 'in consequence of’ termination The phrase 'in consequence of' is not defined in the ITAA 1997. However, the courts have interpreted the phrase in a number of cases. Whilst the courts have divergent views on the meaning of this 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 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) . While TR 2003/13 contains references to repealed provisions, some of which may have been rewritten, the ruling still has effect 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: 5. ...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 this case, the Client’s employment was terminated and, as a result of the termination, the Client was paid a redundancy payment. Therefore, we consider the payment was paid to the Client in consequence of the termination of their employment with the Employer. 'Dismissal' and 'redundancy’ The terms 'dismissal’ and 'redundancy’ are not defined in the ITAA 1997 therefore, consistent with basic principles of statutory interpretation, their meaning must be determined according to the ordinary meaning of the words, having regard to the context in which they appear. The Commissioner’s view, as stated in paragraphs 18 and 25 of TR 2009/2 is that : 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. 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. From the facts presented, the position still exists within the Employer with the duties reallocated amongst the remaining partners. Consequently, it is considered that subsection 83-175(3) of the ITAA 1997 has not been satisfied. Accordingly, the payment is not a genuine redundancy payment. | Detailed Reasoning - Further conditions for a genuine redundancy payment: In addition to the basic requirement for a genuine redundancy payment found in subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997, the further conditions for genuine redundancy payment treatment in subsections 83-175(2) and (3) of the ITAA 1997 require that: ● the employee is dismissed before they turn 65 or an earlier mandatory age (subparagraph 83-175(2)(a)(i)); ● the termination is not at the end of a fixed period of employment (subparagraph 83-175(2)(a)(ii)); ● if the dismissal was not at arm’s length – the payment does not exceed the amount that could reasonably be expected to be made if the dismissal was at arm’s length (paragraph 83-175(2)(b)); ● there is no arrangement entered into between the employer and the employee or the employer and another entity to employ the dismissed employee after the termination (paragraph 83-175(2)(c); and ● the payment is not in lieu of superannuation benefits (subsection 83-175(3)). In this case, at the time of termination the Client was under 65 years of age and the termination was not at the end of a fixed period of employment. Also, there was no arrangement between the Employer and the Client, or between the Employer and another entity, to employ the Client after the termination; and the payment is not in lieu of superannuation benefits. Lastly, the redundancy payment is not excluded from the definition of a genuine redundancy payment. As such, subsection 83-175(4) of the ITAA 1997 has been satisfied.

Subject: Genuine redundancy: Is any part of a lump sum payment received by the Client from a former employer a genuine redundancy payment for the purposes of section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?