Private ruling: Whether there are PAYG withholding obligations in relation to payments
Published: May 2015
Ruling period: 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 | 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 | 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 | 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018
Date scheme commenced: 1 January 2015

Ruling: Q1: Is there a PAYG Withholding obligation on the entity on the payment of a share of net revenue payments paid to current employees? | A1: No | Q2: Is there a PAYG Withholding obligation on payments from the entity to ex-employees who do not quote an ABN? | A2: Decline to rule


Relevant legislative provisions: Taxation Administration Act 1953 section 12-35 of Schedule 1 | Taxation Administration Act 1953 s ection 359-1(1) of Schedule 1 | Taxation Administration Act 1953 section 359-20(2) of Schedule 1

Reasons for decision: Summary: Part 2-5 of Schedule 1 (Sch 1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA) covers Pay As You Go (PAYG) withholding obligations. Subdivision 12-B of Sch 1 of the TAA outlines payments for work and services, more specifically under section 12-35 payments to employees are covered. Section 12-35 of Sch 1 of the TAA states an entity must withhold an amount from salary, wages, commission, bonuses or allowances it pays to an individual as an employee (whether of that or another entity). Paragraph 14 of Taxation Ruling TR 2005/16 states for the provision (Section 12-35 of Sch 1) to apply, there must be an employee, a payment of salary, wages etc. to an employee as a consequence of his/her employment and finally the payment must be made by an entity. In relation to current employees it is accepted that recipients of the payments in relation to the tasks are "employees" and the payments are made by an entity, therefore it has to be determined whether the payments are made as a consequence of the recipient's employment and whether the payments are considered salary, wages etc. The question whether an item is either directly or indirectly related to employment or to services rendered is a question which has caused difficulty in a number of cases. The question whether an amount is in respect of, or for, or in relation directly or indirectly to employment or services rendered and the limitations imposed upon the generality of these words have been discussed in a number of Australian cases. The leading case in connection with the question is FC of T v Dixon (1952) 86 CLR 540; 10 ATD 82. In that case it was held that weekly instalments to make up the difference between the rate of civil pay of an employee on enlistment and the rate of his defence force pay was in the nature of income, and therefore assessable. This decision overruled the decision of the Board of Review in 15 CTBR Case 8 that such payments were not assessable. All the members of the High Court agreed with the Board's view, however, that the payments were not allowed, given or granted to the employee in respect of, or for, or in relation directly or indirectly to any employment of or services rendered by him within the meaning of sec 26(e) (now section 15-2 of the ITAA 1997). In a joint judgment Dixon C.J. and Williams J. said (86 CLR at p 553; 10 ATD at pp 83-84): ``There can, of course, be no doubt that the sum of £104 represented an allowance, gratuity or benefit allowed or given to the taxpayer by Macdonald Hamilton and Company. Our difficulty is in agreeing with the view that it was allowed or given to him in respect of or in relation, directly or indirectly, to any employment of or, services rendered by him. It is hardly necessary to say that the words `directly or indirectly' extend the operation of the words `in relation to'. In spite of their adverbial form they mean that a direct relation or an indirect relation to the employment or services shall suffice. A direct relation may be regarded as one where the employment is the proximate cause of the payment, an indirect relation as one where the employment is a cause less proximate, or, indeed, only one contributory cause. It may be conceded also that the proviso has an effect upon the construction of para (e) of sec 26, but the effect is only to show that the allowance may be in consequence of a retirement from or termination of the office, not to show that a mere historical connection, as it may be called, is sufficient. We are not prepared to give sec 26(e) a construction which makes it unnecessary that the allowance, gratuity, compensation, benefit, bonus or premium shall in any sense be a recompense or consequence of the continued or contemporaneous existence of the relation of employer and employee or a reward for services rendered given either during the employment or at or in consequence of its termination.'' Fullagar J said (86 CLR at pp 563-564; 10 ATD at pp 89-90): ``The moneys would not, of course, have been paid if the respondent had not been employed by Macdonald Hamilton & Company up to the date of his enlistment. But nothing that he had done in his employment by Macdonald Hamilton & Company, or might thereafter do if he re-entered their employment, provided the occasions of the payments. The payments were made irrespective of any services given by an employee as employee. The same bounty was available to one who had served for one month or for ten years.... The fact of the respondent's employment explains the selection of him as a recipient, but it in no degree characterises the payment. The payment does not partake in any degree of the character of a reward for services rendered or to be rendered.'' The amounts paid to employees are not paid as a consequence of the employee's employment. The payments are paid to them as a consequence of the tasks they performed and not directly or indirectly in their capacity as employees. The payments are also not considered salary or wages therefore there is no obligation on the entity to withhold from payments made to employees in relation to the tasks under section 12-35 of Sch 1 of the TAA. Under certain circumstances, the Commissioner may decline to make a private ruling. The Commissioner can only make a private ruling in response to a valid application. A private ruling is a written expression of the Commissioner's opinion of the way in which a relevant provision applies, or would apply, to you in relation to the specified scheme: Section 359-1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA). A private ruling must identify the entity to whom it applies and specify the relevant scheme and the relevant provision to which it relates: Section 359-20(2) of Sch 1 to the TAA. Your application asks the Commissioner to determine whether the payer is required to withhold PAYG Withholding on the payments made to ex-employees who do not quote an ABN. As you are not able to specify the relevant scheme in relation to the payee in each and every scenario the Commissioner cannot make a ruling about this matter. However, in order to provide you some assistance in this matter, based on the information supplied in your private ruling application, the Commissioner can offer the following general advice. | Detailed Reasoning - General Information: An entity (the payer) must withhold an amount from a payment it makes to another entity if: (a) the other entity which operates an enterprise does not supply an invoice with an ABN or some other document relating to the supply which includes an ABN; (b) the other entity does not supply a "Statement by a supplier"; or (c) one of the exceptions under section 12-190 of Sch 1 to the TAA does not apply.

Relevant facts: The entity employs staff who are required to undertake certain tasks as part of their employment. | Employees assign their rights in relation to tasks performed to the entity. | The entity receives money as a result of those tasks. | The entity pays some of those funds to their employees and ex-employees.