Olias Pty Ltd as trustee for the Storer Family Trust and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between Olias Pty Ltd, as trustee for the Storer Family Trust (the Applicant), and the Commissioner of Taxation (the Respondent) concerning Superannuation Guarantee Charge assessments. The Applicant objected to these assessments, which related to the period from 31 December 2014 to 30 June 2017. The core of the dispute revolved around whether a music teacher, Mr Jayden Rowell, engaged by the Applicant during this period, was an employee or an independent contractor for superannuation guarantee purposes.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Rowell was an employee of the Applicant within the ordinary meaning of that term, or under the extended definition in section 12(3) of the *Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992* (Cth), specifically whether he worked under a contract wholly or principally for his labour. This involved applying a multi-factorial approach to characterise the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Rowell.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant did not exercise control over the specific methods Mr Rowell used to teach, it did exert control regarding the time, duration, and location of lessons, as well as the fees charged and the uniform to be worn. The Tribunal also considered the integration of Mr Rowell's services into the Applicant's business, noting that the Applicant sourced the students and offered lessons in other instruments to protect its core business. Despite the Applicant's contention that Mr Rowell was operating his own business, evidenced by his ABN and a Gumtree advertisement, the Tribunal was not convinced he was truly carrying on his own business in a way that would negate an employment relationship. The Tribunal found that the indicia weighed towards an employment relationship.

The Tribunal ordered that the objection decision be varied to amend the Superannuation Guarantee Assessment for the quarter ended 31 March 2016, in accordance with a revised calculation provided by the Respondent, to account for a payment made to Mr Rowell. The objection decision was otherwise affirmed.