Oral health therapist an employee, not a contractor, for SG purposes
The ART has ruled that an oral health therapist (OHT) engaged by a dental practice was an “employee” of the practise under the extended definition of employee in s 12(3) Superannuation Guarantee Act. Therefore, the practice was liable for around $70,000 in unpaid superannuation guarantee charge. In arriving at this conclusion, the ART found that the wording of the OHT’s contract contemplated personal performance of the contract by her. It also found that while the contract contemplated “delegation (as imposed by the relevant professional Code of Conduct) it was not persuaded that these professional obligations meant that she had the freedom to choose to delegate or subcontract her obligations to another person of her choice in the way contemplated by the legal authorities. (Balmain Dental Clinic Pty Ltd as Trustee for Dentist & Co Trust and FCT (Taxation and business) [2026] ARTA 895, 22 May 2026)
Payday super declaration re “contribution base”
The Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) (Continuing Contributions) Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Declaration 2026 has been made. It makes amendments to recognise changes made by the Payday super legislation whereby the ‘maximum contributions base’, will move from a quarterly base amount to an annual base amount, and will operate as a direct limit on contributions rather than on ordinary time earnings. It also deals with contribution obligations which will apply to employers by reference to an employee’s ‘qualifying earnings’ on a ‘QE day’ rather than on OTE in a quarter, and the variable ‘charge percentage’ to be fixed at 12%.
Full Court: Taxpayer assessable on $30m deposits in bank accounts
The Federal Court has unanimously allowed the Commissioner’s appeal from the decision in Cheung v FCT [2024] FCA 1370. In that case, the primary judge found that deposits of over $30m in the bank account of the taxpayer or his wife from 2005 to 2015 were not income under ordinary concepts (for a range of reasons, including that he was not the sole owner of the relevant business). However, on appeal the Full Court found that the primary judge ought to have found that the taxpayer’s onus of proof had not been discharged. The Full Court also said that, in this case, where there were serious issues about a flawed fact finding process, it was entitled to interfere with factual findings on a real review of the evidence (notwithstanding its role as an appellate court). Accordingly, subject to a favourable adjustment of $1.16m, the Court allowed the Commissioner’s appeal. (FCT v Cheung [2026] FCAFC 75)
