Notice of Withdrawal, Notice of Erratum

Overview

The Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan, has announced updates to certain rulings which came into effect recently. Specifically, Ruling Number SGD 94/4, concerning whether a person who provides home-based child care is considered an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGAA), has been withdrawn with effect from 1 August 2018. Additionally, an Erratum has been issued to Wine Equalisation Tax Ruling WETR 2009/1, correcting the language in paragraph 171. This Erratum applies from 29 June 2018. These updates were made by the Commissioner of Taxation and aim to ensure clarity and accuracy in the application of the relevant tax rulings.

Scope and Application

The Commissioner of Taxation has issued a notice concerning the withdrawal of a ruling and an erratum in relation to two specific taxation matters. Ruling SGD 94/4, which provided guidance on whether a person who provides home-based child care is considered an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, has been withdrawn with effect from 1 August 2018. This ruling was applicable to individuals and entities involved in the provision of home-based child care and provided clarification on their superannuation obligations. Additionally, an erratum has been issued to correct the language of paragraph 171 in Wine Equalisation Tax Ruling WETR 2009/1, which addresses the operation of the wine equalisation tax system. The erratum applies from 29 June 2018 and is relevant to the wine industry and related entities that are subject to the wine equalisation tax. Both the withdrawal and the erratum serve to refine and clarify the application of tax laws in Australia.

Key Provisions

The Commissioner of Taxation has issued a notice regarding the withdrawal of Ruling Number SGD 94/4, which previously addressed whether a person who provides home-based child care is considered an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGAA). This ruling was withdrawn with effect from 1 August 2018, meaning that it no longer provides authoritative guidance on this specific matter. Additionally, there has been an erratum issued in relation to Wine Equalisation Tax Ruling WETR 2009/1. This erratum corrects the language of paragraph 171, and it applies from 29 June 2018. The purpose of this erratum is to ensure that the ruling accurately reflects the intended legislative provisions and to provide clarity to those subject to the wine equalisation tax system. Under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGAA), employers are required to make superannuation contributions for their employees. The withdrawal of Ruling Number SGD 94/4 means that parties previously relying on this ruling for determining employment status in the context of home-based child care must now seek other means to ascertain employment status. This may involve consulting other relevant legislation, case law, or seeking specific advice from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The obligations and requirements imposed by the Wine Equalisation Tax Ruling WETR 2009/1 concern the proper application and understanding of the wine equalisation tax system. The erratum serves to correct an error in the original ruling, thereby ensuring that taxpayers and industry participants are not misled by inaccurate information. Taxpayers must ensure they are applying the correct provisions as amended by the erratum, particularly in relation to the corrected paragraph 171. There are no explicit offences, penalties, or consequences for breach mentioned in relation to the withdrawal of Ruling Number SGD 94/4. However, any party relying on the withdrawn ruling may face scrutiny from the ATO if their interpretation of employment status does not align with the current legislative framework. In the case of the erratum to WETR 2009/1, failure to apply the corrected provisions could result in incorrect tax assessments, leading to potential financial penalties, interest, and possible legal action by the ATO. The specific penalties for non-compliance with wine equalisation tax provisions are not detailed in the notice, but they would typically include fines and interest as prescribed under the relevant tax legislation.