Tax & ATO News Australia

Searching for tag: Federal Court

Uber BV v The Commissioner of Taxation

Last Friday, the Federal Court held that services supplied under the uberX service constitute “taxi travel” within the meaning of s 144-5 (1) of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth).

 

To give context to this dispute, following the rise in popularity of the ride sharing platform the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) announced in 2015 that Uber drivers will have to register and pay GST, regardless of turnover. The general rule regarding registration is that an enterprise with a turnover of less than $75,000 is not required to register for GST. An exception to this rule is Section 144-5(1) which requires a person who is carrying on an enterprise of supplying ‘taxi travel’ to be registered for GST regardless of turnover. Section 195-1 of the GST Act goes on to define ‘taxi travel’ as ‘travel that involves transporting passenger, by taxi or limousine, for fares’.

 

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) took the position that the Uber platform fell within this exception. However Uber disagreed with this position and sought a declaration from the Federal Court that the services provided by UberX drivers did not constitute taxi travel.

 

Applicant Submissions:


The applicant made submissions on the construction of ‘taxi travel’ claiming:

 

  • ‘Taxi Travel’ was intended to apply only to the taxi industry as the legislature did not seek to deal with this issue in any other industry.

  • The statutory context suggests that the words “taxi” and “limousine” bear a trade or non-legal meaning. Alternatively the ordinary meaning of the words “taxi” and “limousine” was heavily influenced by the underlying regulatory regime.
  • The disjunctive “taxi or limousine” in the definition of s195-1 provides that “taxi” and “limousine” have different meanings.

 

Using the above mentioned arguments on statutory construction, the applicant put forward factual arguments distinguishing Uber from Taxis. The applicant contended that Uber services did not display the essential operational features of a taxi, on the basis that Uber vehicles do not show markings, the access is limited to Uber licensees (App Users), payment systems and calculations differ and Uber drivers are not required to display a fare meter.

 

Respondent Submissions:


The respondent’s made submissions that:

 

  • “Taxi travel” is to be construed as a whole and connotes the transport, by a person driving a private vehicle, for a fare irrespective of whether the fare is calculated by reference to a taximeter.

  • The services supplied by Uber demonstrate the essential features of transport “by taxi” and “by limousine”.
  • The applicant incorrectly relied on the regulatory regimes applying to the taxi industry.

 

The Commissioner in support of its submission on the construction of ‘taxi travel’ used dictionary definitions to help identify the key features of a ‘taxi’ in ordinary understanding.

 

Furthermore the Commissioner made submissions that the difference between a limousine and a taxi was that a limousine is not calculated by reference to a taximeter and will need to be pre-booked. Therefore, “limousine” could apply to any hire car.

 

Decision:


Justice Griffiths “accepted the Commissioner’s submission that the word “taxi” is a vehicle available for hire by the public and which transports a passenger at his or her direction for the payment of a fare that will often, but not always, be calculated by reference to a taximeter”. In reaching this decision, consideration was placed on principles of statutory interpretation. Further to this the dictionary definitions the Commissioner relied upon provided the court with a supporting context of this interpretation.

 

However, Griffiths J rejected the Commissioner’s position that limousine was not confined to luxury cars. Instead the ordinary meaning of limousine “was a private luxurious motor vehicle which is made available for public hire and which transports a passenger at his or her direction for the payment of a fare”. Although the present matter involved a Honda Civic which did not meet this definition, Griffiths J recognised this position may be different in cases of other UberX drivers who do use luxury cars.


Ultimately this decision will impose huge compliance burdens on Uber and its drivers. Particularly Uber drivers will now have to register both an Australian Business Number and register for GST, charge an additional 10%, lodge Business Activity Statements and claim Input Tax Credits.

 

With this being another win for the Commissioner, it can be expected that there will be a crackdown in tax compliance within the ride sharing industry. 

Co-authored with Ben Caratti

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 09 March 17

Crown Insurance Services Limited wins in High Court against ATO

A long running fight between one of my clients and the ATO has had its final battle in the High Court on 6 June 2013.

 

Crown Insurance Services Limited, an offshore insurance company, succeeded in the High Court on 6 June 2013 in an application brought by the ATO to appeal against a Full Federal Court decision regarding the source of Crown Insurance's income. The ATO had lost in the Full Federal Court following an appeal from its loss in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. A significant amount of tax was at stake in a case which could have had major ramifications for overseas companies which have dealings with Australian companies.
 
The ATO's case was that because Crown Insurance dealt with related Australian companies, which made their income from Australia, Crown Insurance's income was indirectly derived from Australian sources.
 
In running their appeals, the ATO ignored several High Court and other authorities over many years.
 
The ATO also argued that there should be a change of law on the determination of appeals from lower courts and tribunals.  Appeals from the AAT must be on a question of law and the ATO argued for a significant extension in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear appeals.  The ATO was attempting to overturn long standing decisions including Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs and Collector of Customs v Agfa Gevaert. The effect of such a change of law would be to complicate appeals from the AAT and potentially turn all such appeals into a virtual re-hearing of the original decision.  This would add greatly to the already considerable cost of litigation in Australia.
 
Our client is immensely relieved at the win, but frustrated that the ATO has taken such a long time and wasted so much money fighting appeals that seemed doomed to failure from the outset.
 

Posted in: Tax & ATO News Australia at 07 June 13

Share


Tax & ATO News Australia

Author: David Hughes

Last 12 months

Tags