The quagmire of employee vs contractor for employment taxes Sam Gathercole
By: Gathercole, Sam
.
Material type: 
ArticleSubject(s): TRABAJADORES | EMPLEO | IMPUESTOS | POLITICA FISCAL
In:
Australian Tax Forum: a journal of Taxation Policy, Law and Reform v. 40, n. 1, 2025, p. 29-58Summary: The classification of workers for employment tax purposes lies on a continuum ranging from employee to contractor. Engaging entities (hereinafter, "principals") are responsible for employment tax obligations (ie pay-as-you- go withholding, fringe benefits tax, Superannuation Guarantee and payroll tax) where those workers are considered employees under the relevant requirements. Each employment tax has a different test for determining which workers will impose an obligation on principals when engaged. Three key findings of this article are that (1) differences in the employment tax policy objectives suggest that different tests are appropriate, and the existence of different tests for different obligations appears consistent within international tax frameworks; (2) industry-specific tests should be abolished; and (3) administrators should undertake targeted educational campaigns to increase principals' awareness of the application of the various tests.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 1867/2025/1-2 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 1867/2025/1-2 |
The classification of workers for employment tax purposes lies on a continuum ranging from employee to contractor. Engaging entities (hereinafter, "principals") are responsible for employment tax obligations (ie pay-as-you- go withholding, fringe benefits tax, Superannuation Guarantee and payroll tax) where those workers are considered employees under the relevant requirements. Each employment tax has a different test for determining which workers will impose an obligation on principals when engaged. Three key findings of this article are that (1) differences in the employment tax policy objectives suggest that different tests are appropriate, and the existence of different tests for different obligations appears consistent within international tax frameworks; (2) industry-specific tests should be abolished; and (3) administrators should undertake targeted educational campaigns to increase principals' awareness of the application of the various tests.
There are no comments for this item.