Private ruling: Foreign source income
Date of advice: 6 August 2020
Published: September 2020
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 20XX | Year ended 30 June 20XX
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 20XX

Ruling: Q1: Does subparagraph 6(1)(d)(i) of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth) and section 6-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) apply to exempt from income tax the remuneration you derive from the organisation on the basis that you are an office holder? | A1: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You are an Australian resident for tax purposes. You signed 2 contracts with the overseas organisation. You were contracted as an International Individual Contractor Consultant. Contract 1 The Consultant is responsible for supporting stakeholder engagement strategy You were required to produce a number of reports along with videos, webinars, articles, blogs as part of your position. All of your work was home based for both contracts and was carried out in Australia. Both contracts were short term contracts. The position was a non-ongoing role which did not exist prior to you taking up the contracts. You were not entitled to any leave or other benefits as part of the contracts. You were able to determine your hours of work. You were not responsible for any staff as part of your duties. You were able to accept other work an enter into other contracts while working for the organisation. You were paid for a result and paid for all of your own expenses in relation to phone etc as you worked from home in Australia.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 6-15(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 6-5(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 6-20 | The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 Subsection 3(1) | The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 Subsection 5(1) | The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 subparagraph 6(1)(d)(i)

Reasons for decision: Summary: Income from professional services is ordinary income for the purposes of subsection 6-5(2) of the ITAA 1997. However, subsection 6-15(2) of the ITAA 1997 says that if an amount is exempt income then it is not assessable income. Section 6-20 of the ITAA 1997 provides that an amount of ordinary income is exempt income if it is made exempt from income tax by a provision of the ITAA 1997 or another Commonwealth law. The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (IO(P&I) A) is a Commonwealth law under which an international organisation, and persons engaged by it, may be accorded certain privileges and immunities including an exemption from tax. The IO(P&I) A exempts from taxation certain income of a person connected with an international organisation, to the extent that it satisfies all of these elements: · the income is received from an international organisation to which the IOPIA 1963 applies · the person is connected with the international organisation in one of the ways set out subsection 6(1) of the IO(P&I)A 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 IO(P&I)A defines the term 'international organisation to which this Act applies' to mean an organisation that is declared by the regulations to be an international organisation to which the IO(P&I)A applies, and includes a body established by such an organisation. Subsection 6(1) and Part I of the Second to the Fifth Schedules to the IOPIA 1963 inclusive set out the taxation exemptions that can be conferred upon certain persons currently connected with an international organisation. Relevant to your case, this includes the following: · a person who holds an office in an international organisation (but who is not a holder of a high office) - as per paragraph 6(1)(d) and Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the IOPIA 1963 Relevantly, as per item 2 of Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule this includes an exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments received from the international organisation. The organisation is an Agency to which the IO(P&I)A applies as specified in the Regulations. Sub-regulation 10(1) of the Regulations provides that as a person who held an office in the organisation , other than a person that is a high office holder, has the privileges and immunities specified in Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the IO(P&I)A, which includes exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments received from the organisation. Therefore the payments that you received in relation to your engagement with the organisation will be exempt from income tax if it can be shown that you are a holder of an office (but not a high office) of the organisation at the time you were undertaking those assignments. This is a question of fact that needs to be resolved separately for each assignment. | Detailed Reasoning - Office holder: As per South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v. News Ltd [2000] FCA 1541 (the South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd Case) in determining what the nature of a relationship was between two parties it is necessary to look at the form and substance of that relationship. It is not appropriate to adopt the label that one or more parties may have given to the relationship and let that determine what it is. 'Office' and 'office holder' are not defined by the IOPIA 1963 and the ITAA 1997 and therefore they should take their ordinary meaning. Care must be taken to ensure that it is read with regard to the context of the statutory provision (as per Certain Lloyd's [2009] HCA 56 (Lloyds Case) at [23-26]). | Detailed Reasoning - The guidance provided in the rulings on what is an office holder: The Commissioner's views on what is an office holder are set out in in draft Taxation Ruling TR 2019/D1. As per paragraph 27 of TR 2019/D1 a holder of an office can include a person who works as an employee of an international organisation, but it does not include a person (whether an employee or not) who is: · locally engaged and paid an hourly rate, or · engaged as an expert or consultant. An appointment, office or position must exhibit the characteristics of an office holder. As per paragraph 25 of TR 2019/D1 the characteristics of an office holder for an appointment, office or position are: · independent existence - the office must exist regardless of the individual who occupies the office from time to time. This means that if the individual currently occupying the office vacates that office, the office must continue to exist to be filled by another individual · duties, functions, responsibilities or powers - the office must have identifiable duties, functions, responsibilities or powers other than a mere advisory function. These features of the office (or of the panel, board, committee or tribunal to which the individual has been appointed) would usually be specified in the relevant legislation or statutory instrument [or for a common law situation, foundation document or equivalent document of that nature] and · the relevant duties, functions, responsibilities or powers must attach to the office itself, rather than the individual who occupies the office. Further guidance on who is an office holder is also provided by Taxation Ruling TR 2002/21 . As is apparent from the Commissioner's views and the relevant case law in determining who is an office holder it is not sufficient 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. | Detailed Reasoning - Case law on the meaning of office holder: As discussed in paragraphs [31] and [34] of FCT v. Jayasinghe [2017] HCA 256 (the 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 IOPIA 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 27 of TR 2019/D1 in paragraph [52] of the Jayasinghe Case. | Detailed Reasoning - Your circumstances: As noted in the paragraphs above, the word office connotes a position of defined authority in an organisation, such as a director of a company or the president of a club. The holder of a professional employment is not an office holder merely because the position has a name. An office holder's position is more than something which is important or substantial within a company. Following the listed reasons below, your roles on your assignments with the organisation are best described as that of an consultant, and not an office holder. As such the substance of your relationship is consistent with that of a contractor and what one would commonly understand a 'contractual employee' to be. You have supplied contracts which specifically say you are a consultant. You are not an office holder in respect of the assignments you undertook for the organisation. This is because: · Independent existence or permanence - the position you occupied as a consultant for your assignments with the organisation did not have any permanence to them. This demonstrates that contracts you had with the organisation were short contracts and that the position was not an ongoing position and did not exist prior to you being contracted. Your position does not continue to exist should you depart. This is opposed to an 'office' where the position itself is an ongoing or continuing one, either continuously or for a substantial term even if the person that occupies it at a particular point changes (an example would be the position of Governor General or the position of a Royal Commissioner). · duties, functions, responsibilities or powers are defined by the office - the consulting positions that you occupied do not have duties, functions, responsibilities or powers as it is purely a consultative role. Each contract is for the creation of specified products in a specified timeframe. You did not have any defined duties or authority in relation to the organisation and carrying out its functions. As such it cannot be said that your position as a consultant is defined by the duties, functions, responsibilities or powers that you carried out while occupying it. Therefore, as per this factor you would not be regarded as an office holder. You have no staff that you are responsible for. Both contracts were short in nature. This is opposed to an officer holder who would be expected to hold their position for a longer period of time to give stability to the office and allow its duties, functions and responsibilities to be performed in an effective manner. As such the payments that you have received are not considered to be exempt income on the basis that you are an office holder of an international organisation under paragraph 6(1)(d) of the IOPIA 1963, taking into account the Regulations, and section 6-20 of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: As stated above, under sub regulation 10(1) of the Regulations a person who holds an office, other than a high office, in a Specialized Agency, has the privileges and immunities specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the IO(P&I)A, including income tax exemption on salaries and emoluments received from the organisation. However, in your case Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the IO(P&I) A which grants the income tax exemption does not apply as you do not hold an office as specified in the Schedule. Instead you are regarded as an expert or consultant who is performing a mission to the UN but, as per regulation 11 of the Regulations, no income tax exemption is available for a person working in this capacity. Accordingly, the income derived by you as a consultant for the organisation is assessable under subsection 6-5(2) of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Income tax exemption on the basis that you were an expert or consultant (performing a mission for the UN): The section on the regulations pertaining to the organisation that covers persons performing missions for the organisation (sub regulations 11(1) and 11(2) of the Regulations) does not confer on any person connected with them in the capacity of performing a mission or working as experts or consultants, an exemption from taxation (outlined in include privilege 2A in the Fifth Schedule of the IO(P&I)A. | Detailed Reasoning - Further reasoning: In summary, the IO(P&I) A does provide for an exemption from income tax of salaries and emoluments received by an expert or a consultant under paragraph 6(1)(e), subject to the provisions of the relevant Regulations. The manner by which section 6-20 of the ITAA 1997 exempts income from taxation that is exempted by the IOPIA in relation to office holders applies equally here in relation to considering exemption on the basis of whether you were an expert or a consultant. Regulation 11 of the Regulations provides when privileges and immunities are available to a person performing a mission on behalf of the organisation. As per paragraph 32 of Taxation Ruling TR 2019/D1 this category includes experts and consultants. However, the Regulations limits the privileges and immunities that are provided to the persons connected with the organisation. This does not include privilege 2A in the Fifth Schedule of the IO(P&I)A, which is the exemption from taxation. This means that no person who works for the organisation, be it performing a mission or working as an expert or a consultant, is conferred an exemption from taxation. As such the payments that you have received would not be exempt income on the basis that you are performing a mission or working as an expert or consultant under paragraph 6(1)(e) of the IOPIA 1963, taking into account the Regulations, and section 6-20 of the ITAA 1997.