Disclaimer
This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication. It should not be regarded as indicative of the ATO's current views. The law may have changed since original publication, and views in the edited version may also be affected by subsequent precedents and new approaches to the application of the law.

You cannot rely on this record in your tax affairs. It is not binding and provides you with no protection (including from any underpaid tax, penalty or interest). In addition, this record is not an authority for the purposes of establishing a reasonably arguable position for you to apply to your own circumstances. For more information on the status of edited versions of private advice and reasons we publish them, see PS LA 2008/4.

Edited version of your written advice

Authorisation Number: 1012713094296

Ruling

Subject: Termination payment

Questions

1. Do lump sum payments made in lieu of a minimum redeployment period paid on termination of employment by reason of genuine redundancy form part of the genuine redundancy payments?

2. Is a lump sum payment equal to a number of months' salary paid as an additional payment on termination of employment by reason of genuine redundancy which is not a payment in lieu of a minimum redeployment period to be treated differently?

Answers

1. Yes.

2. No.

This ruling applies for the following period:

The year ending 30 June 2015.

The scheme commenced on:

1 July 2014

Relevant facts and circumstances

An employer (the Employer) is an independent statutory authority.

The Employer's terms and conditions for employment are provided under a determination (the Determination) which refers to a notice period.

The Determination provides clauses in relation to the termination of employment, notice payment periods and payments in lieu of notice

The Determination also includes matters relating to redeployment of surplus employees and the provision of departure packages for unplaced surplus employees after a reasonable period.

The Employer states that all ongoing employees that are declared surplus will undergo a minimum redeployment period of a number of months unless agreed otherwise. If redeployment is not achieved at the end of that period, employment will be terminated and the employee will be eligible to receive a departure package (the Package) in accordance with the employer's workplace policies (the Policies).

The Policies state in part that the packages only be used in circumstances of bona fide redundancy. Bona fide redundancies will arise where facilities or functional areas are closing, the organisation is being wound up, or where employees' skills are no longer required.

The Packages are not voluntary, they are compulsory retrenchment packages applied by an employer in circumstances where the work is not required to be performed by the employer and where there is no opportunity for continued employment of the employee.

The Packages comprise of a specified number of weeks' pay in lieu of notice on cessation of employment and also take into account the employee's age and continuous service.

In certain circumstances, the Employer can pay a lump sum equivalent to a number of months' salary in lieu of the redeployment period, in addition to the Package detailed in the Policies.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 83-175(1).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 83-175.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 83-170.

Reasons for decision

Summary

The lump sum payment on termination of employment equivalent to a number of months' salary in lieu of the minimum redeployment period forms part of a genuine redundancy payment.

A lump sum payment equivalent to a number of months' salary paid as an additional payment on termination of employment, which is not a payment in lieu of the minimum redeployment period, is also part of a genuine redundancy payment.

Detailed reasoning

A payment made to an employee is a genuine redundancy payment (GRP) if it satisfies all the conditions set out in section 83-175 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997). This section states:

In this case the main issue is the requirement in subsection 83-175(1) of ITAA 1997, stated above. The facts show that the employees were dismissed from employment because their positions are genuinely redundant. What needs to be determined is whether a lump sum payment equivalent to a number of months' salary exceeds the amount an employee would have received if they had voluntarily resigned.

From the facts, all ongoing employees that are declared surplus must undergo a minimum redeployment period unless agreed otherwise. If redeployment is not achieved at the end of the period, employment is terminated and the employee will be eligible to receive a Package. The Employer stipulates that the Package is only available in circumstances of bona fide redundancy that is genuine redundancy.

However, the Employer may forgo the minimum redeployment period and pay the employee a lump sum equivalent to a number of months' salary. This payment is made in addition to the Package and only available to employees eligible for the Package. Accordingly, the payment in lieu of the number of months redeployment period is more than what an employee would have reasonably expected to receive had they resigned. As such, the requirements under subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997 are satisfied.

Similarly, even if a lump sum payment equal to a number of months' salary is paid not in lieu of a minimum redeployment period, it will still represent an amount in excess of what would have been received had the employee voluntarily resigned. Therefore, this payment will also satisfy the requirements under subsection 83-175(1) of the ITAA 1997.

Notwithstanding all the above, it should be noted that all the other requirements in section 83-75 of the ITAA 1997 must be satisfied for the payments to be GRPs.

Superannuation Guarantee

Advice has been requested as to whether lump sum payments in lieu of a minimum redeployment period, paid on termination of employment by reason of genuine redundancy, are ordinary time earnings (OTE) for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGAA). Please note, a private ruling cannot be provided for the purposes of the SGAA.

However, the following general advice is provided which, whilst not binding on the Commissioner, the Tax Office will stand by and will not depart from unless:

From 1 July 2008, all employers must use OTE as the earnings base to calculate the minimum super guarantee contributions required for your employees.

The phrase 'ordinary time earnings' is defined in subsection 6(1) of the SGAA as follows:

In broad terms (and subject to some exceptions), OTE of an employee means earnings in respect of ordinary hours of work. Payments for work performed outside the ordinary hours of work, such as overtime payments, are not OTE.

OTE is usually the amount an employee earns for their ordinary hours of work. It includes commissions, shift-loadings and some allowances, but does not include overtime payments. Superannuation Guarantee Ruling SGR 2009/2 Superannuation guarantee: meaning of the terms 'ordinary time earnings' and 'salary or wages' (SGR 2009/2) provides further guidance on what constitutes OTE.

The expression 'earnings in respect of ordinary hours of work' or any of the terms in that expression are not defined in the SGAA. The Commissioner's view on the meaning of these phrases is expressed in the following paragraphs of SGR 2009/2 as follows:

Paragraph 38 of SGR 2009/2 state:


Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).