Levitch Design Associates Pty Ltd ATF Levco Unit Trust v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

Levitch Design Associates Pty Ltd, through its trustee Levco Unit Trust, was in dispute with the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue over payroll tax liabilities. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether certain professional services provided by Levitch Design were exempt from payroll tax under the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW). The tribunal had previously ruled that Levitch Design's services did not qualify for exemption and the Chief Commissioner assessed the tax accordingly. Levitch Design challenged this decision, arguing that the services they provided were indeed exempt under the act.

The court was required to determine whether the services supplied by Levitch Design fell under a "relevant contract" as defined by the act, specifically if these services included professional services. Another key issue was whether the services were not ordinarily required and whether they were performed by someone who typically provides such services to the public in the relevant financial years. Additionally, the court needed to decide if Levitch Design qualified as a genuine independent business, and if the contractor was financially independent of the designated person, as these factors influence the exemption criteria. The court also had to consider whether the Chief Commissioner should remit the market rate component of the penalty and whether he exercised reasonable discretion in determining the assessment.

The Supreme Court found that certain services Levitch Design provided were exempt under the act. The court held that the relevant contract did include professional services, and these services were not ordinarily required and were performed by someone who typically provides such services to the public. The court also determined that Levitch Design qualified as a genuine independent business and that the contractor was financially independent of the designated person. Consequently, the court remitted the matter to the Chief Commissioner for determination in accordance with the tribunal's decision for the 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 financial years. However, the court confirmed the assessment for the 2009 financial year. The Chief Commissioner was required to exercise reasonable discretion in determining the assessment moving forward.