The payroll tax legislation applies throughout Australia but each State and Territory has its own Payroll Tax Act. Payroll tax is collected by the individual States and Territories, not by the Federal Government.
Not every employer pays payroll tax. Each State’s Payroll Tax Act provides a threshold under which wages are not liable to payroll tax. o For more information about payroll tax thresholds and payroll tax rates see: How Payroll Tax is Calculated in Australia
If it were not for the grouping provisions of the Payroll Tax Act the easy answer would be to simply have multiple companies employing staff in the same business.
But the Payroll Tax Act contains a number of provisions designed to stymie such a solution. Some of the provisions deem a worker to be employed by someone who isn’t in fact the worker’s employer. Others provide for the grouping of entities that are connected in one or more of the ways specified in the Payroll Tax Act, and if two or more entities are grouped by the Payroll Tax Act, the group gets only one such threshold exemption, rather than one for each separate entity.
Because the grouping provisions of the Payroll Tax Act are so artificially wide, they can catch businesses with the most remote connection. Some people think if the businesses are diverse then the grouping provisions don’t apply. But unfortunately, that is not the case. We have seen very diverse businesses grouped such as where one business is a child care centre and the other is a hotel, some 300 kilometres away from each other.
Application for degrouping also known as an exclusion order
Because the Office of State Revenue (in some States called the State Revenue Office) recognises that the grouping provisions are so artificially wide, the Payroll Tax Act provides for the Commissioner to make an exclusion order for an entity from a group. But the Commissioner of State Revenue must be satisfied that the business is carried on independently and is in no way connected with the business of any other member of the group. This does not only mean that they are different types of businesses.
The Commissioner will consider:
Make no mistake, it is not easy to persuade the Commissioner to issue an exclusion order.
However, we have found that as long as you dot your i’s and cross your t’s, applications can be successful.
Client came to us direct.
Facts:
One company’s business provided commercial and industrial refrigeration solutions.
The other company’s business was an electrical contractor.
One company was owned and operated by two individuals and the other company was owned by those two individuals plus one other person who managed the business.
The companies were grouped because the two individuals controlled both companies through their shareholdings and directorships.
Challenge:
We were asked to apply to the Commissioner for an exclusion order even though the Commissioner was entitled to group the companies because the companies were controlled by the majority of owners.
Outcome:
We were successful in persuading the Commissioner to issue an exclusion order and for the grouping provisions to no longer apply. We were able to demonstrate to the Commissioner that the companies were financially independent of each other and under separate management.
Benefits:
Each company enjoyed their own tax free threshold, saving many thousands of dollars in payroll tax every year.
Client referred to us by their accountant.
Facts:
Five companies, involved in running service stations in Victoria, Queensland and Northern Territory, were grouped for payroll tax so only one of the companies enjoyed the tax free threshold.
The companies were owned by four different people to varying degrees of ownership.
Challenge:
We were given a brief to apply for an exclusion order for the grouping provisions to no longer apply.
Outcome:
We were able to convince the Commissioner that at least some of the companies should be degrouped from the others because of the way in which the companies were run independently and no financial dependencies existed. Each company held their own separate trade creditors and they ordered their own goods independently.
Benefits:
A substantial saving in payroll tax which was made retrospective for a number of years.
Client came to us direct
Facts:
Two businesses involved in manufacturing but each manufacturing vastly different products.
Both businesses were majority owned by two people but the second business was managed by a minority shareholder.
Challenge:
The businesses engaged us to apply for an exclusion order.
Outcome:
Because we could demonstrate that the two businesses were run independently and even though there was a majority ownership of the two businesses, the Commissioner agreed to issue an exclusion order for the grouping provisions to no longer apply.
Benefits:
Substantial savings in payroll tax of many thousands of dollars every year.
Client came to us direct
Facts:
Four companies assessed for payroll tax under the Grouping provisions. Two of the companies were transport companies, one a substantial breeding business and the last a manufacturing/repair business.
The companies were ultimately owned by one person.
Challenge:
The companies could clearly be grouped because they were effectively owned by one person.
The manufacturing/repair business asked us to apply for an exclusion order under the Tasmanian Payroll Tax Act 2008.
Outcome:
We were able to convince the State Revenue Office of Tasmania to grant the exclusion order and degroup the companies under the Tasmanian Payroll Tax Act 2008. We could demonstrate that the managing director had effective control of the business. The business was run completely independently from the other companies.
Benefits:
A substantial saving in payroll tax made retrospective to 1 July 2018 and that saving applies to future years ad infinitum.
Client referred to us by their accountant
Facts:
Two companies controlled by family trusts operated by mother and children.
Challenge:
The companies could clearly be grouped because they were effectively controlled by the one family.
The companies asked us to apply for an exclusion order under the Qld Payroll Tax Act 1971.
Outcome:
With changes we made to various legal documents particularly, the family trusts of the siblings we were successful in obtaining an exclusion order for the companies to be degrouped.
Benefits:
A substantial saving in payroll tax made retrospective to July 2018 and that saving applies to future years ad infinitum.
Client referred to us by their accountant
Facts:
One person controlled two companies running 2 different hotels.
Challenge:
The Chief Commissioner was entitled to group the two companies because one person controlled both companies.
However, a written agreement had been entered into between the shareholder and an investor where the investor was a silent investor without his interest being made public.
The silent investor acted as a de factor or shadow director even though he was not listed as a director.
We had to persuade the Commissioner to accept the silent investor’s interest in the companies and make an exclusion order despite the investor’s interest not being disclosed.
Outcome:
The Chief Commissioner accepted our submissions and agreed to make the exclusion order.
Benefits:
Each company enjoyed their own tax-free threshold, saving many thousands of dollars in payroll tax every year.
Client referred to us by their accountant
Facts:
Two people controlled the construction company and they held the majority interest in a labour hire business effectively controlling both companies.
Challenge:
The Commissioner was entitled to group both companies because of the majority shareholding.
The companies asked us to make an application for exclusion under the Western Australian Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 2002.
Outcome:
We were successful in convincing the Office of State Revenue to grant the exclusion order. We were able to demonstrate that the managing director of the labour hire company had effective control of the business.
Benefits:
A substantial saving of payroll tax made retrospective for nearly 5 years saving the clients a substantial amount in payroll tax now and in the future.
Client came to us direct.
Facts:
Three businesses assessed for payroll tax as a group under the Grouping provisions.
The three companies were ultimately owned by 2 persons.
Challenge:
The OSR was entitled to group the businesses because of common control.
The joinery business asked us to apply for an exclusion order under the NSW Payroll Tax Act 2007.
Outcome:
We were granted the exclusion application because we could demonstrate that the managing-director of the joinery business operated his business independently of the other two businesses.
Benefits:
Grouping of the businesses ceased resulting in substantial savings in payroll tax for all three businesses retrospective for 9 months.
Client came to us direct.
Facts:
Two businesses whose boards were controlled by the same two persons.
The businesses also had some business transactions with each other.
Challenge:
The OSR was entitled to group the businesses under section 72(2)(c)(i) of the Payroll Tax Act where a person or set of persons control more than 50% of the voting power at meetings of directors.
The companies asked us to make an exclusion (de-grouping) application so that each business could claim the threshold amount.
Outcome:
On considering our exclusion application the OSR agreed to no longer group the companies for payroll tax. We were able to demonstrate that the companies operated under separate management and were independent of each other.
Benefits:
Immediate benefits for each company being able to claim the threshold amount resulting in substantial savings. The OSR’s decision was made retrospective for 18 months.
Tobin Partners Pty Ltd – ABN: 63 271 835 131
Individual Liability Limited by a Scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation.
Services
Notary Services