Edited version of your private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1012064895045

This edited version of your ruling will be published in the public register of private binding rulings after 28 days from the issue date of the ruling. The attached private rulings fact sheet has more information.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.

Ruling

Subject: settlement payment

Question 1

Is the payment you will receive from your former employer subject to tax?

Answer

Yes.

Question 2

Is a payment to be made under a Deed of Settlement and Release as a result of an unfair dismissal considered to be an employment termination payment in accordance with subsection 82-130(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?

Answer

Yes.

This ruling applies for the following period:

Year ended 30 June 2012

The scheme commences on:

1 July 2011

Relevant facts and circumstances

During 2010, 2010, you commenced employment with a company (the employer).

The employer made a decision to terminate your employment.

You lodged an Application for Unfair Dismissal Remedy, to Fair Work Australia (FWA).

You alleged that your employment with the employer was terminated unfairly.

The employer denied the allegations.

During the unfair dismissal conciliation neither party would deter from their beliefs however both parties agreed to resolve the matter under the terms of the Deed of Settlement and Release (the Deed).

A payment was to be made to you under the terms of the Deed.

You are under 55 years of age.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 82-10(3),

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 82-130,

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 82-130(1),

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 82-130(a),

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 82-130(b),

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 paragraph 82-130(c),

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 82-130(4),

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 82-135 and

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 995-1.

Reasons for decision

Summary

There is no blanket exemption from tax for all compensation payments. Whether a compensation payment is subject to tax depends on the facts of the particular payment. For example, a compensation payment for loss of income is taxable while a compensation payment for a personal injury is not.

You will receive a settlement payment in relation to a claim for unfair dismissal. In your case, the issue that must be determined is whether this amount is an employment termination payment. This issue is relevant as there are specific provisions in the taxation legislation which make employment termination payments subject to tax. This matter is discussed in further detail below.

The settlement payment is an employment termination payment as it is being made in consequence of your termination of employment.

Detailed reasoning

Employment termination payment

Section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) states that:

employment termination payment has the meaning given by section 82-130 of the ITAA 1997.

Subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997 states that:

A payment is an employment termination payment if:

(a) it is received by you:

(i) in consequence of the termination of your employment; or

(ii) after another person's death, in consequence of the termination of the other person's employment; and

(b) it is received no later than 12 months after that termination (but see subsection (4)); and

(c) it is not a payment mentioned in section 82-135.

A life benefit termination payment is an employment termination payment to which subparagraph (1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1997 applies.

A death benefit termination payment is an employment termination payment to which subparagraph (1)(a)(ii) of the ITAA 1997 applies.

Section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997 provides that certain payments are not employment termination payments, including:

§ payment for unused annual leave or unused long service leave;

§ the tax-free part of a genuine redundancy payment or an early retirement scheme payment.

§ reasonable capital payments for personal injury.

To determine if a settlement payment constitutes an employment termination payment, all the conditions in section 82-130 of the ITAA 1997 will need to be satisfied.

Failure to satisfy any of the three conditions will result in the payment not being considered an employment termination payment. Furthermore, any termination payments received outside of the 12 months will be taxed as ordinary income at marginal tax rates, unless the taxpayer is covered by a determination exempting them from the 12 month rule.

Paid as a consequence of the termination of your employment

It should be noted that the phrase 'in consequence of the termination of your employment' is not defined in the legislation. However, both the Courts and the Commissioner have considered the meaning of this phrase.

In Taxation Ruling TR 2003/13 the Commissioner has considered the meaning of the phrase 'in consequence of'.

In paragraph 5 of TR 2003/13 the Commissioner states:

… a payment is made in respect of a taxpayer in consequence of the termination of the employment of the taxpayer if the payment 'follows as an effect or result of' the termination. In other words, but for the termination of employment, the payment would not have been made to the taxpayer.

As further stated by the Commissioner in paragraph 6 of TR 2003/13, there must be:

… a causal connection between the termination and the payment, although the termination need not be the dominant cause of the payment. The question of whether a payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment will be determined by the relevant facts and circumstances of each case.

The phrase 'in consequence of termination of employment' has been interpreted by the courts in several cases.

Of note are the decisions made by the High Court in Reseck v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 49 ALJR 370; (1975) 6 ALR 642; (1975) 5 ATR 538; (1975) 75 ATC 4213; (1975) 133 CLR 45 (Reseck) and the Full Federal Court in McIntosh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 25 ALR 557; (1979) 10 ATR 13; (1979) 45 FLR 279; (1979) 79 ATC 4325 (McIntosh).

In Reseck Justice Gibbs stated:

Within the ordinary meaning of the words a sum is paid in consequence of the termination of employment when the payment follows as an effect or result of the termination… It is not my opinion necessary that the termination of the services should be the dominant cause of the payment.

While Justice Jacobs stated:

It was submitted that the words 'in consequence of' import a concept that the termination of the employment was the dominant cause of the payment. This cannot be so. A consequence in this context is not the same as a result. It does not import causation but rather a 'following on'.

In looking at the phrase 'in consequence of' the Full Federal Court in McIntosh considered the decision in Reseck.

Justice Brennan considered the judgments of Justice Gibbs and Justice Jacobs in Reseck and concluded that their Honours were both saying that a causal nexus between the termination and payment was required, though it was not necessary for the termination to be the dominant cause of the payment.

Suffice it to say that both Courts' views were that for a payment to be made in consequence of the termination of employment it had to follow on as a result or effect of the termination of employment. Additionally, while it is not necessary to show that termination of employment is the sole or dominant cause, a temporal sequence alone would not be sufficient.

Furthermore, in Le Grand v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1258; (2002) 124 FCR 53; (2002) 195 ALR 194; 2002 ATC 4907; (2002) 51 ATR 39 (Le Grand), the issue before the court was whether an amount received by the applicant as a result of accepting an offer of compromise in respect of claims brought by him against his former employer, in relation to the termination of his employment was in whole, or in part, an ETP. It was held that a settlement payment for litigation in relation to a taxpayer's dismissal was an ETP.

Justice Goldberg stated:

I am satisfied that there is a sufficient connection between the termination of the applicant's employment and the payment to warrant the finding that the payment was made "in consequence of the termination" of the applicant's employment. I am satisfied that the payment was an effect or result of that termination in the sense that there was a sequence of events following the termination of the employment which had a relationship and connection which ultimately led to the payment.

Justice Goldberg concluded that the test for determining when a payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment is that which was articulated by Justice Gibbs in Reseck. Thus, for the payment to have been made in consequence of the termination of employment, the payment must follow as an effect or result of the termination of employment. As earlier stated in paragraph 6 of TR 2003/13, there must be 'a causal connection between the termination and the payment even though the termination need not be the sole or dominant cause of the payment'.

The Full Federal Court in Dibb v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126; (2004) 207 ALR 151; 2004 ATC 4555; (2004) 55 ATR 786, has applied the above decisions in finding that the payment received by the taxpayer under a Deed of Release to settle various causes of action against the employer following the termination of employment was an ETP.

Paragraph 31 of TR 2003/13 the Commissioner states:

It is clear from the decision in Le Grand, that when a payment is made to settle a claim brought by a taxpayer for wrongful dismissal or claims of a similar nature that arise as a result of an employer terminating the employment of the taxpayer, the payment will have a sufficient causal connection with the termination of the taxpayer's employment. The payment will be taken to have been made in consequence of the termination of employment because it would not have been made but for the termination.

The essence of this analysis is that if the payment follows as an effect or a result from the termination of employment, the payment will be made in consequence of the termination of employment for the purposes of subparagraph 82-130(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1997. Hence the payment will be an employment termination payment unless the payment is specifically excluded under section 82-135.

The question of whether a payment is made in consequence of the termination of employment will be determined by the relevant facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present case, you were employed with a company (the employer).

You were dismissed from employment and lodged an application with Fair Work Australia (FWA). You alleged that your employment was terminated unfairly.

The employer denied the allegation.

During the unfair dismissal conciliation neither party would deter from their beliefs however both parties agreed to resolve the matter under the terms of the Deed of Settlement and Release (the Deed).

Under the agreed terms of the Deed a settlement payment was to be made to you. Therefore, it was agreed that the employer would make the payment to you in full and final settlement of all and any claims arising from your employment and the termination of your employment. Furthermore, you have advised that the employer agreed that the payment will be made to you within 12 months of the termination of employment.

It is clear from the facts provided that the payment to be made to you is 'in consequence of the termination of employment'. Although a cause of the payment was the claims brought by you against the employer, there is still a causal connection between the termination and the payment of the settlement. The legal action, the termination and the payment are all intertwined and connected. There would have been no payment if there was no termination. Therefore the first requirement under subparagraph 82-130(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1997 has been satisfied.

The payment is received no later than 12 months after termination

The second condition for the payment to meet the criteria, as an employment termination payment is stated under paragraph 82-130(1)(b) of the ITAA 1997. The settlement sum must be received within 12 months of the taxpayer's termination of employment, unless the taxpayer is covered by a determination exempting them from the 12 month rule.

As the payment will be made within 12 months of the termination of employment the requirement under paragraph 82-130(1)(b) of the ITAA 1997 will be met.

The final requirement under paragraph 82-130(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997 is that the payment is not a payment mentioned in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997.

Exclusions under section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997

Certain payments made on termination of employment are excluded from being an employment termination payment under section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997. These payments include any accrued annual and long service leave and the tax-free parts of a genuine redundancy payment or an early retirement scheme payment as well as other types of payments which do not apply to an employment termination payment.

As stated above, the payment is considered to be a payment received in consequence of the termination of employment and is not a payment mentioned in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997. Thus, the requirement in paragraph 82-130(1)(c) is satisfied in this instance.

Consequently, the payment to be made to you is considered to be an employment termination payment as it satisfies all the requirements in section 82-130 of the ITAA 1997, and are not specifically excluded under section 82-135.

An employment termination payment made will be comprised of the following components:

Tax fee component this includes the post-June 1994 invalidity or pre-July 83 component (if any); and

Taxable component the amount remaining after deducting the tax free component from the total payment.

The taxable component is subject to tax, depending on the person's age, as follows:

* Preservation age is the age at which retirees can access their superannuation benefits. This will be 55 for persons born before 1 July 1960 and between 55 and 60 for persons born after 30 June 1960.

The $140,000 cap on concessionally taxed employment termination payments is indexed annually to average weekly ordinary time earnings. For the 2011-12 income year the ETP cap is $165,000.

The taxable components of all life benefit employment termination payments received in an income year are counted towards this cap. Any tax-free amounts are not counted towards the cap.

In this case, you are under preservation age on the last day of the income year in which the payment is being made. The whole payment is a taxable component of an employment termination payment therefore this amount is to be included in your assessable income.

As the payment is under the employment termination payment cap, you are entitled to a tax offset that ensures that the rate of income tax on the amount does not exceed 30% in accordance with subsection 82-10(3) of the ITAA 1997. In addition, the Medicare levy may apply.