# Are the ATO just being bullies?



## UBER_TOP_PARTNER (Jul 1, 2016)

Are the ATO just bullying in requiring Uber drivers to pay GST? They the ATO continually state the driver charges the rider from point A to B. Which is completely untrue! Uber provide the service...set the price, charge the price, collect the price and pay the driver a weekly wage. As a former courier...Uber operates exactly as a courier company, not a taxi company!

Furthermore, if Uber works for the drivers. How is it Uber have all the riders details, such as surname, address, phone number and credit card details. Yet the drivers are not privy to any of that information. The ATO are just bullying!

* if the ATO win out, then Uber should Lobby very vigourously for Uber drivers to use taxi ranks, bus lanes etc remember if it "smells like, quacks like..." see how the taxi industry like that!


----------



## g00r (Mar 10, 2015)

UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> As a former courier...Uber operates exactly as a courier company, not a taxi company!


Did you work as an employee, owner/driver or a franchisee?
Uber operates exactly like taxis have done for the past 17 years and 21 days that the GST act has been in effect.
The driver invoices the passenger. 
The owner receives an invoice for network access services.

As for the argument that you don't receive the cash, Uber does.. Well the taxi driver doesn't receive the cash from ETFPOS either.



UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> * if the ATO win out, then Uber should Lobby very vigourously for Uber drivers to use taxi ranks, bus lanes etc remember if it "smells like, quacks like..." see how the taxi industry like that!


You're confusing federal laws (A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999) and state based road regulations.

Remember that the ATO handed down their ruling on ride share services (found here) long before the states worked out what to do about this new industry. The ATO expressed no opinion on the legality of operating a ride-share service with respect to state based regulations, they were only concerned with taxation matters.



UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> Which is completely untrue!


Sorry, but it is not.


----------



## UBER_TOP_PARTNER (Jul 1, 2016)

I worked as an sub-contractor owner/driver. Uber are identical to courier companies in the way they operate with drivers or as they brand them partners!

I didn't say receive cash or eftpos or any other form of payment...the uber driver at no point in time transacts with the rider. They notify uber of the trip ending nothing more! Just as a courier does! Taxi drivers take payment!!


----------



## yogi bear (Dec 25, 2015)

just suck it up and pay your taxes like everyone else has to, you are offering a taxi service so pay taxi taxes, otherwise its an unfair trading advantage you'd be having, totes agin the law


----------



## UBER_TOP_PARTNER (Jul 1, 2016)

I declare it all as income and pay my taxes!

Unfair is why Uber exists in the first place!!


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

I don't believe the Tax Office are being bullies.

The way I see it is that they are fair dinkum and are seeking to apply the law enacted by Parliament to the facts as they understand them.

They have concluded that, on the facts, the better view is that Uber drivers are independent contractors even though they don't rule out a court reaching a different view.

This view that drivers are contractors makes life challenging for the Tax Office in a practical sense as they need to deal with large numbers for relatively small amounts of revenue and have to deal with many who don't understand their obligations and quite a few determined to be martyrs in relation to all or some of the GST payable.


----------



## UBER_TOP_PARTNER (Jul 1, 2016)

The ATO are bullying because they know full well that they get a lot more $ from GST than they ever will from Uber income tax!

It's about being fair dinkum not martyrdom! I only do Uber for the freedom and flexibility to facilitate my new startup business!!


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> The ATO are bullying because they no full well that they get a lot more $ from GST than they ever will from Uber income tax!
> 
> It's about being fair dinkum not martyrdom! I only do Uber for the freedom and flexibility to facilitate my new startup business!!


UBER_TOP_PARTNER, I wasn't seeking to suggest that you're trying to be a martyr but there are drivers who are.

The amounts of GST revenue from the Tax Office's perspective are relatively small but they do need to apply the law as they understand it. They also can't give a competitive advantage to rideshare compared with taxis.

It would be much easier for them to collect the GST from Uber but the current law as they see it doesn't permit that.

All the best for your start-up business.


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

The tax office is complicit in that they condone Uber stealing the 25% of GST from drivers that should be paid to drivers who then pay it to the Tax Office (partners ...yeah right ).

Bullies is a reasonable description ...but its more accurate that they are condoning the real bullies.

GST should be paid by the customer and eventually get to the tax office WITHOUT Uber unilaterally stealing 25% like some feudal overlord.

Hey ...UTP also doing the same as you re: startup ...but have arrived at the conclusion that Uber will not provide sufficient income to enable flexibility or freedom.

All the best mate. 

BB


----------



## fields (Jul 11, 2016)

Jack Malarkey said:


> I don't believe the Tax Office are being bullies.
> 
> The way I see it is that they are fair dinkum and are seeking to apply the law enacted by Parliament to the facts as they understand them.
> 
> ...


They most definitely are bullies. Not to everyone though, while chasing every cent they can get out of Uber drivers, they have just given wealthy celebrities a tax break not available to anyone else.


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

BabyBoomer said:


> The tax office is complicit in that they condone Uber stealing the 25% of GST from drivers that should be paid to drivers who then pay it to the Tax Office (partners ...yeah right ).
> 
> Bullies is a reasonable description ...but its more accurate that they are condoning the real bullies.
> 
> ...


It's inappropriate for Uber to charge its service fee on the GST component of the fare. The Tax Office doesn't have the legal authority to change the contractual terms between Uber and its drivers.



fields said:


> They most definitely are bullies. Not to everyone though, while chasing every cent they can get out of Uber drivers, they have just given wealthy celebrities a tax break not available to anyone else.


I haven't heard about this new tax break for wealthy celebrities.


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

Jack Malarkey said:


> It's inappropriate for Uber to charge its service fee on the GST component of the fare. The Tax Office doesn't have the legal authority to change the contractual terms between Uber and its drivers.
> 
> I haven't heard about this new tax break for wealthy celebrities.


No offence Jack, but I don't think you have got that analysis quite correct: GST is collected to be paid to the Tax office. Assuming Uber is taking a 25% service fee (as they advertise) then, they are clearly also taking an additional 25% of the GST amount (which surely must be against GST regulations).

The ATO clearly should be aware of this as a result of the extensive legal action between them (if they are not aware then they are inept). This means that the ATO is happy to insist that they get their GST while at the same time happy to throw the drivers (who are literally in poverty) to the wolves. This should have been part of the agreement or understanding as part of the court outcome and for the ATO to ignore this is gutless.

It might take a while, but I intend to get legal advice on the matter.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## UBER_TOP_PARTNER (Jul 1, 2016)

The ATO sent me their rhetoric on you are charging people from point A to B and as such are a taxi service. But, with a disclaimer at the end saying it is only the ATO's interpretation of the current tax laws.

The ATO are bullies! Which ever way they want to say it...they are incorrect. At no point in time does an Uber driver charge or transact with the rider. Just as a courier does, an Uber driver merely notifies the company (Uber) of pick up and delivery.

I also intend to get legal advice!


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

BabyBoomer said:


> No offence Jack, but I don't think you have got that analysis quite correct: GST is collected to be paid to the Tax office. Assuming Uber is taking a 25% service fee (as they advertise) then, they are clearly also taking an additional 25% of the GST amount (which surely must be against GST regulations).
> 
> The ATO clearly should be aware of this as a result of the extensive legal action between them (if they are not aware then they are inept). This means that the ATO is happy to insist that they get their GST while at the same time happy to throw the drivers (who are literally in poverty) to the wolves. This should have been part of the agreement or understanding as part of the court outcome and for the ATO to ignore this is gutless.
> 
> ...


Thanks, BabyBoomer. You correctly describe the position but I can identify nothing in the GST or other taxation law that would authorise the Tax Office to require Uber to stop charging its service fee on the GST component of the fare irrespective of how unfortunate that practice is.

The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman might be persuaded to take an interest in this matter on the grounds that the relevant contractual terms are oppressive to small businesses. (See http://www.asbfeo.gov.au/.)

I think it's sensible for you and UBER_TOP_PARTNER to seek legal advice as planned.

I know that another and related matter that causes angst to many drivers is that GST is payable on the gross fare and not the net fare after application of the service fee.

Yet the GST law clearly requires this interpretation and it's not something that the Tax Office comes up with out of spite towards rideshare drivers. It's also consistent with GST being a tax on turnover without regard to expenses incurred other than by allowing a credit for any GST payable on those expenses.

The fact that those providing taxi services (including rideshare, as confirmed by the Federal Court) don't have access to the generally applicable $75,000 threshold is not something that the Tax Office came up with to bully Uber drivers but is an application of what the Australian Parliament unequivocally enacted.

Those who believe that the Tax Office is on some kind of malevolent and bullying frolic or conspiracy against Uber drivers have the avenue open to them of a complaint to the Inspector-General of Taxation. This is something I believe they should pursue to clear the air. (See http://igt.gov.au/.)


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

Cheers Jack,


The only salient question re this GST fiasco AFAICT is the legality of Uber collecting GST and not passing this GST on so that it may be paid to the Commissioner of Taxation. I cannot understand how GST regulations allow an entity to unilateraly confiscate part of this tax. 

Surely the regulation states that GST is to be charged to the retail customer and must be paid to the ATO. Surely it doesn't say collect the GST and only pass on 75% of it. Thus any agreement with a third party that contradicts this basic tenent of GST should be invalid. 

Other questions such as the $75,000 or gross fare vs net fare are not relevant and are really obfuscation (or red herrings) IMHO (no offence).

It's not a question of the ATO being malevolent, but rather them not being concerned if an entity ignores TAX regulations ...as long as the ATO is not financially disadvantaged. 

Cheers,

BB


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

BabyBoomer said:


> Cheers Jack,
> 
> The only salient question re this GST fiasco AFAICT is the legality of Uber collecting GST and not passing this GST on so that it may be paid to the Commissioner of Taxation. I cannot understand how GST regulations allow an entity to unilateraly confiscate part of this tax.
> 
> ...


If you have a read of the GST laws (act here, regs here) you'll see that there is nothing that covers how a commission is to be calculated. As Jack correctly points out, it's a contractual matter between the parties to a contract. There may well be some other law or legal principle that makes what Uber is doing illegal, but I don't believe you will find any solace in the GST laws.

The way our GST system is structured, it is suppliers (and only suppliers) that pay tax debits on outputs (ie. "taxable supplies"in GST terms) and claim tax credits on inputs (ie. "creditable acquisitions" in GST terms). That is how a Value Added Tax (VAT ) style system is designed to operate. Consumers are *never* liable to pay such a tax and the way our GST laws operate suppliers are not legally holding money on behalf of consumers, they are directly liable whenever a taxable supply is made. One and only one entity will be 100% liable for any taxable supply that has been made. When you have an appreciation for how the GST system operates, you come to understand that it's not possible for Uber to be taking 20-25% of "the GST".

Rightly or wrongly, the ATO has decided that drivers are the "supplier" for GST purposes. That means that drivers are liable for 100% of the GST payable on the amount paid by riders. There is no basis in law to say that a supplier can be liable for anything other than 100% of the GST payable. The only thing you could argue is that you are not the "supplier", and you could only argue that if you are an agent or employee of Uber. If you are an agent or employee of Uber, then you are acting on their behalf and they are the "supplier" and subsequently become liable for 100% of the GST payable on the amount paid by riders. There is no scope to argue that we are liable for some portion of the GST payable, and Uber is liable for the rest. The GST law does not allow for such an interpretation.



Jack Malarkey said:


> I haven't heard about this new tax break for wealthy celebrities.


It's probably a reference to the abolition of the Temporary Budget Repair Levy.


----------



## fields (Jul 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> It's probably a reference to the abolition of the Temporary Budget Repair Levy.


No it isn't.

*http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/9f4cfa7a73b5d8904ea61f09485916f4*

_AFL players and other sports stars have won lucrative tax breaks for their "fame", which will be worth tens of thousands of dollars a year to the biggest names.

Every professional sportsperson will be eligible to cash in on the image rights perk, delivered by the Australian Taxation Office.

Sports stars - including the highest-paid AFL players such as Lance Franklin and Nathan Fyfe, who earn about $1 million a year - will be allowed to direct 10 per cent of their playing income to a private trust or company, where it will attract a tax rate of just 27.5 per cent_.


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

fields said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> *http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/9f4cfa7a73b5d8904ea61f09485916f4*
> 
> ...


Thanks, fields. This is based on a draft Tax Office ruling that may not be finalised in this form.

This isn't a case of the Tax Office giving a tax break but the Tax Office issuing a draft ruling on what it thinks Parliament enacted.

In any event, Revenue Minister Kelly O'Dwyer has indicated that the Government is likely to seek amendments of the law if the Tax Office were to finalise the ruling in a way consistent with the draft.

See https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...tax-cut-and-passive-investors-20170704-gx449s.


----------



## UBER_TOP_PARTNER (Jul 1, 2016)

And that is where the ATO are bullying. Their interpretation of the Uber driver is flawed and needs challenging!

An Uber driver at no point in time transacts with the rider. Just as a courier does they merely notify the company (Uber) of pickup and delivery.

What person or business allows a third party (Supposedly Uber) to have names, account details etc of clients and they the primary business are not privy to that information?


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> And that is where the ATO are bullying. Their interpretation of the Uber driver is flawed and needs challenging!
> 
> An Uber driver at no point in time transacts with the rider. Just as a courier does they merely notify the company (Uber) of pickup and delivery.
> 
> What person or business allows a third party (Supposedly Uber) to have names, account details etc of clients and they the primary business are not privy to that information?


Just because the Tax Office has reached a conclusion that differs from yours is not tantamount to bullying but a difference in interpretation grounded in good faith.

There are other factors that support the independent contractor conclusion. These include the express terms of the contract entered into (relevant even though not determinative); the fact that drivers are free to work for competitors; the fact that drivers are completely free to set their own hours; the fact that drivers can negotiate a lower fare with the rider; the fact that the driver is largely free not to accept ride requests; the fact that the driver can do whatever they like while the app is on and they are waiting for ride requests; and the fact that the driver provides all relevant major tools of trade (car and smartphone).

It is indeed feasible that a court would support your conclusion. The Tax Office itself recognises this. Until an Australian court gives a definitive judgment on this specific issue, we can't be sure.

The Tax Office has reached a conclusion reasonably open to it based on its understanding of the current law even though that differs from yours. That is hardly bullying: it's a difference of opinion.

If you are convinced the Tax Office is being a bully, you should take the matter up with the independent Inspector-General of Taxation: http://igt.gov.au/.


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> If you have a read of the GST laws (act here, regs here) you'll see that there is nothing that covers how a commission is to be calculated. As Jack correctly points out, it's a contractual matter between the parties to a contract. There may well be some other law or legal principle that makes what Uber is doing illegal, but I don't believe you will find any solace in the GST laws.
> 
> The way our GST system is structured, it is suppliers (and only suppliers) that pay tax debits on outputs (ie. "taxable supplies"in GST terms) and claim tax credits on inputs (ie. "creditable acquisitions" in GST terms). That is how a Value Added Tax (VAT ) style system is designed to operate. Consumers are *never* liable to pay such a tax and the way our GST laws operate suppliers are not legally holding money on behalf of consumers, they are directly liable whenever a taxable supply is made. One and only one entity will be 100% liable for any taxable supply that has been made. When you have an appreciation for how the GST system operates, you come to understand that it's not possible for Uber to be taking 20-25% of "the GST".
> 
> ...


So are you telling me that the entity required to pay the GST (drivers) does not have the agency to charge the consumer for that full GST? That is not how the tax is supposed to work and you guys know it. Uber make it clear that they charge 25% commission on the full fare & charges AND this includes GST. Therefore they are charging a commission on the GST (this is a logical argument that would be supported by the courts IMHO). Can anyone identify where the GST regulations allow for an entity to not pass on the full GST component as charged to the end user?

So *if what you are saying is correct*, we are required to pay the GST, but do not have the agency to charge this full GST to the end user. This should be further evidence that we are not contractors but employees.

I guess this is all moot until FWA make their ruling:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...al-breach-of-labour-laws-20170628-gx0a82.html










A similar ruling of "exploitative contracts" looks likely to me. This would at least require back pay to the equivalent of minimum wages AFAICT.

Has anyone noticed that Uber do not pass on the surge component of the cancellation fee?

I'm determined to wade through the BS and unfair practices of Uber one way or another. They have no concern for fairness, for drivers, or for the law (*ask the murdered Brazilian drivers*) unless they are held to account by a court.

We wait, we see, we plan, we attack!  

Cheers,

BB


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

BabyBoomer said:


> So are you telling me that the entity required to pay the GST (drivers) does not have the agency to charge the consumer for that full GST? That is not how the tax is supposed to work and you guys know it. Uber make it clear that they charge 25% commission on the full fare & charges AND this includes GST. Therefore they are charging a commission on the GST (this is a logical argument that would be supported by the courts IMHO). Can anyone identify where the GST regulations allow for an entity to not pass on the full GST component as charged to the end user?


I think your reply highlights a misunderstanding of how the GST system operates. Card terminal providers have been charging a commission on the amount paid by customers since day one. How is that any different from Uber charging a commission on the amount paid by riders? To my knowledge we haven't seen any court cases about how terminal providers charge commissions. Why not? Could it be because there's nothing illegal about setting a commission in this way, that it's a contractual issue between the parties?



BabyBoomer said:


> So *if what you are saying is correct*, we are required to pay the GST, but do not have the agency to charge this full GST to the end user. This should be further evidence that we are not contractors but employees.


As defined in the act, the amount of GST payable is 10% of the value of the taxable supply. And the value of a taxable supply is defined as the price paid by the customer multiplied by 10 / 11. It's a roundabouts way of saying that the GST payable by you is one eleventh of whatever amount was paid by the customer. It's impossible to do other than "charge this full GST to the end user".



BabyBoomer said:


> I guess this is all moot until FWA make their ruling:
> 
> https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...al-breach-of-labour-laws-20170628-gx0a82.html
> 
> ...


Ok. I can see this is an emotive topic for you, but the law and emotion rarely mix well. Judges don't bend the law to your liking simply because you're passionate about the topic at hand. I think a line of attack premised on Uber breaking the GST laws in some fashion is bound to fail. You're much more likely to succeed if you argue that Uber is your employer and they are therefore the real "supplier" and liable for 100% of the GST. You wouldn't have to worry about GST at all then!


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

Clearly I'm an emotional wreck ...thanks for allowing me to see the light ...off to the psychiatrist for me  (More obfuscation).

Perhaps you guys are wrong and it is in fact not legal to charge a comission on GST ...but no one has tested the matter in court.

Can you guys show me the part of the act that says an entity collecting GST is entited to keep part of the GST as a comission or payment -can you show me proof of which way the law will be interpreted?

No ..I guess you can't.

Maybe you experts could ease up on the condescending "you don't understand how GST works" and actually provide the evidence showing that it is legal to charge a comission on the GST you collect.

The paid GST should end up being paid to the ATO ...and you guys are defending the indefensible by referring to vague technicalities.

Everyone knows it is a crock and against the spirit of GST ..even if this particular con is not specifically referred to in legislation, I highly doubt that it will be specifically allowed either.

Thanks for reiterating my reference to the FWA challenge re: employer vs contractor and it's implication for the whole matter. ummmm ...I did understand the implication ...which is why I posted it in the first place. Sheesh .

Other points in this arguement are that Uber:

Unilaterally change rates without agreement from drivers (have no idea what Jack was talking about when he referrred to the right to negotiate a lower fare).
Unilaterally set the pricing structure including surge pricing (see that surge pricing is being challenged in VIC).
Provide no evidence that the surge pricing quoted / paid to drivers matches the price being charged to customers.
Unilaterally charge service fees without paying GST or any drivers component. 
True, Ubers continued worldwide unfair actions are enough to stir a determination to see them held to account and fairness.

Cheers,

BB

#Brisbane


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

BabyBoomer said:


> Clearly I'm an emotional wreck ...thanks for allowing me to see the light ...off to the psychiatrist for me  (More obfuscation).
> 
> Perhaps you guys are wrong and it is in fact not legal to charge a comission on GST ...but no one has tested the matter in court.
> 
> ...


You are right: there is nothing in the tax law that says you can charge commission on the GST component. I can't rule out that a court would find that the tax law prevents this but this would be a surprising result (at least to me).

I apologise if I have come across as condescending: it was not my intention.

What I meant by my statement about the right to negotiate a lower fare is that the driver terms and conditions (including for Australia) specify that the fares set by Uber are maximum fares.

A driver who wants to charge a lower fare (for example, not to charge a surge fare) can put in a fare adjustment request. Uber will then adjust the fare to the lower amount and apply its service fee to the lower fare.

I have now said as much as I wish to say in this thread.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

BabyBoomer said:


> Perhaps you guys are wrong and it is in fact not legal to charge a comission on GST ...but no one has tested the matter in court.
> 
> Can you guys show me the part of the act that says an entity collecting GST is entited to keep part of the GST as a comission or payment -can you show me proof of which way the law will be interpreted?
> 
> No ..I guess you can't.


Show me the law that says you're allowed to raise your left arm over your head. Or the law that permits you to eat potato chips. I bet you won't be able to. And the reason for that is the law doesn't need to state everything that you're allowed to do, it simply wouldn't be practical. It's fairly evident how the law has been interpreted by the ATO:


> *Example 1: GST calculated on full fare*
> 
> If you are registered or required to be registered, GST must be calculated on the full fare, not the net amount you receive after deducting any fees or commissions.
> 
> For example, if a passenger pays $55 and the facilitator pays you $44 (after deducting an $11 commission) the GST payable is $5 (not $4).


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

Jack Malarkey said:


> You are right: there is nothing in the tax law that says you can charge commission on the GST component. I can't rule out that a court would fund that the tax law prevents this but this would be a surprising result (at least to me).
> 
> I apologise if I have come across as condescending: it was not my intention.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your last post Jack, thank you.



UberDriverAU said:


> Show me the law that says you're allowed to raise your left arm over your head. Or the law that permits you to eat potato chips. I bet you won't be able to. And the reason for that is the law doesn't need to state everything that you're allowed to do, it simply wouldn't be practical. It's fairly evident how the law has been interpreted by the ATO:


No offence, but your potato chips example lacks relevance or credibility Uber DriverAU. The law does specifically protect the right for people to behave lawfully, and it also protects against unlawful behaviour such as stealing (which is what I believe charging a comission on GST is) or larceny as used in the following example:










But the second part of your post is the really important part:










This example from the tax office appears (at first glance) to support a "facilitator" (ie Uber) charging a comission on the GST component of a fare -but in faact it *actually does not support this*.

Let me explain: In this example, the tax office is simply saying that GST must be calculated on the full fare -of that I do not disagree.

What the example DOES NOT SAY is that the comission is being charged evenly on the total fare *including GST*. It may impliy that, but it doesn't state it -and in fact it doesn't speculate how the commission is calculated (in their example, the total commission may only be being charged on the full passenger fare of $50 and exclude the GST, with no commission charged on the GST paid). I intend to ask the ATO to clarify what they are suggesting in their example, because if they are suggesting that commission is able to be charged on the GST component, then they should state this clearly (and I contend that this will mean they are complicit in the theft of funds collected for the purpost of GST taxation), and if they are not suggesting this, then their example is misleading and should be corrected.

However, Uber is charging a commission on the GST component because it states that the 25% (20% for the older partners) commission is charged on the *total fare collected* (which includes GST).

*BINGO! *

Therein lies the difference!

Uber could fix this by changing the amount they charge to 28.5% instead of 25% (and wear the community opprobrium). But until they do, I content that they are stealing GST tax and should therefore be liable to repay it.

Thanks for bringing the example to my attention, it has allowed me to focus more clearly on this GST discrepancy (theft). 

I confess I get annoyed when threads have an inferrence that an alternative viewpoint cannot possibly be correct, but it is not my intention to make this a personal dispute Uber DriverAU. 

Let's focus on what is right not who is right.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

BabyBoomer said:


> No offence, but your potato chips example lacks relevance or credibility Uber DriverAU. The law does specifically protect the right for people to behave lawfully, and it also protects against unlawful behaviour such as stealing (which is what I believe charging a comission on GST is) or larceny as used in the following example:


My deliberately silly examples highlights that you don't need explicit permission by the law to do everything. The law also expects that generally contracts will be honoured, and your contract with Uber explicitly states that Uber will take a percentage of what the rider has paid. It's not stealing when you have agreed to it. Go get some legal advice on that point if you need to.


BabyBoomer said:


> I confess I get annoyed when threads have an inferrence that an alternative viewpoint cannot possibly be correct, but it is not my intention to make this a personal dispute Uber DriverAU.


Not all alternative views should be respected. If someone was adamant that the Earth was flat, I certainly wouldn't entertain such a view as being correct. It wouldn't matter how adamant they were.


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> My deliberately silly examples highlights that you don't need explicit permission by the law to do everything. The law also expects that generally contracts will be honoured, and your contract with Uber explicitly states that Uber will take a percentage of what the rider has paid. It's not stealing when you have agreed to it. Go get some legal advice on that point if you need to.
> 
> Not all alternative views should be respected. If someone was adamant that the Earth was flat, I certainly wouldn't entertain such a view as being correct. It wouldn't matter how adamant they were.


You continue to be rude and clearly think you are so smart ...but you are dead wrong.

The law _*does not expect*_ that unlawful contracts will be honoured. I contend that taking 25% of the GST is misappropriation of TAX collected and payable to the ATO and therefore is unlawful. Thanks for the free advice, but I will decide what steps to take next.

I'm not advancing my knowledge by listening to your stubborn diatribe and insults and irrelevant "silly examples" (obfuscation).

I don't plan to respond to further repetition of your tired argument in support of ATO & Uber.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## george manousaridis (Jan 27, 2017)

UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> Are the ATO just bullying in requiring Uber drivers to pay GST? They the ATO continually state the driver charges the rider from point A to B. Which is completely untrue! Uber provide the service...set the price, charge the price, collect the price and pay the driver a weekly wage. As a former courier...Uber operates exactly as a courier company, not a taxi company!
> 
> Furthermore, if Uber works for the drivers. How is it Uber have all the riders details, such as surname, address, phone number and credit card details. Yet the drivers are not privy to any of that information. The ATO are just bullying!
> 
> * if the ATO win out, then Uber should Lobby very vigourously for Uber drivers to use taxi ranks, bus lanes etc remember if it "smells like, quacks like..." see how the taxi industry like that!


The time is coming and coming,Your CREDIT file is to be investigated next,i just hope that Uber doesnt have a DFC(DriverFinacialCrisis) who will be left to drive cheaply.Lol,its a huge misery and very sad as Uber drivers keep driving.Drivers are like floggged dead horses.They just never learn


----------



## george manousaridis (Jan 27, 2017)

UBER_TOP_PARTNER said:


> Are the ATO just bullying in requiring Uber drivers to pay GST? They the ATO continually state the driver charges the rider from point A to B. Which is completely untrue! Uber provide the service...set the price, charge the price, collect the price and pay the driver a weekly wage. As a former courier...Uber operates exactly as a courier company, not a taxi company!
> 
> Furthermore, if Uber works for the drivers. How is it Uber have all the riders details, such as surname, address, phone number and credit card details. Yet the drivers are not privy to any of that information. The ATO are just bullying!
> 
> * if the ATO win out, then Uber should Lobby very vigourously for Uber drivers to use taxi ranks, bus lanes etc remember if it "smells like, quacks like..." see how the taxi industry like that!


Bully you state? ATO/Uber=Bully,dont you agree,run like a married couple,ATO=Man & Uber=Bride


----------



## g00r (Mar 10, 2015)

BabyBoomer: Two observations and some questions for you.

You've asked a lot of questions about taxation and you received answers that didn't support your point of view. 
However, you haven't been able to cite any statute supporting your position whilst others (whom I normally don't see eye to eye with) have.

Let's say that you're correct in your assertions and Uber's hand is forced. Their costs and revenue targets won't change.
So then instead of taking 25% of 100 ($25) they take 27.5% of $90.9 ($25.00) would that appease you?
Remembering that there's nothing to stop them from changing the commission rate at any time.

Shouldn't your argument also take into consideration GST input credits?

Two other examples where companies charge a commission on the total price, including the GST component:
Cabcharge: For at least 20 years, 10 (now 5) % service fee on top of the total fare, charged to the customer
Merchant fees: Again a percentage on top of the sale price inc. GST

Yes the difference in those two instances is that the customer pays the fee and not the supplier, but going on the crux of your argument, tax revenue should be protected from such theft.

As far as I know, all ride share companies, as well as other on-demand services (i.e. MobeeWash that is due to launch next month), work the same way, the contractor (yes, debatable) is the supplier of the product/service and the facilitator invoices the supplier for their commission.
The difference with GoCatch in their invoicing is not that they invoice you for a percentage of the total fare, less GST, it's that their invoice has a GST component. 
My presumption is this is why you have focused on Uber.
As with so many other threads on this site, it's this unfounded belief that "it's wrong that we have to pay Uber's GST".
This is not the case, the supplier you choose to use to run your business is invoicing you from an entity that resides outside of Australia.
This is nothing new the rules have been in effect for 17 years.

The majority of opinion seems to be that you're views are malaligned with the law. 
Happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## AvengingxxAngel (Jan 5, 2017)

It's the industry we work in. Just pay it and carry on. We're all in the same boat, along with the vast amount of other drivers in the same industry.


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

g00r said:


> BabyBoomer: Two observations and some questions for you.
> 
> You've asked a lot of questions about taxation and you received answers that didn't support your point of view.
> However, you haven't been able to cite any statute supporting your position whilst others (whom I normally don't see eye to eye with) have.
> ...


Nice post g00r,

At least you have some original information.

I don't recall anyone quoting statutes that refute my argument ...which is that a facilitator can charge a commission on goods or services provided by the supplier, but not on the GST tax component which only exists through act of parliament. So in effect, the ATO is the "supplier" of this GST, not the Uber driver. Uber has been charging a commission on this ATO tax, but actually making drivers pay for it.

Yes, if Uber changed their rates to 27.5% this would resolve _*their*_ problem (only from that point on -not historical liability), and then also, ...the community would be clear exactly how much they actually charge.

To say it would appease me is not the correct description. It would appease me if they stopped illegally (AFAICT) charging commission on the GST and charge it only on the total service amount drivers provide.

Subsequent to correcting their errant ways, should they choose to increase their commission from 25% to 27.5%, so they still maintain their equivalent effective (excessive in my view) commission -then that is their business decision, having considered both positive and negative consequences.

It would appease me even more if they reduced their current effective 27.5% commission on the services hardworking drivers provide, back to a more reasonable 20% -I mean how much does it really cost to power a few servers and feed some quality IT support staff (yes I digress).

Speaking of digression, the input credits you refer to should rightly go to the actual service provider (drivers) as they currently do. It is these drivers who incur expenses that include a GST component in the course of providing the service that attracts the GST. In addition, the service provider incurs considerable accounting costs in the process of managing the GST. Uber international should incur no GST related expenses.

This would change if they operated as an Australian entity like GoCatch, and they could submit their BAS, pay the GST and claim the input credits. Drivers would sail happily along paying a commission and only having to look after their meagre income tax.

In relation to other companies (facilitators) who may explicitly charge a service fee on the GST (no firsthand knowledge who they may be), they should also be liable to reimburse this cost to the actual service providers IMHO, regardless of how long they have adopted this (what I believe is) illegal action. Powerful organisations will always seek to manipulate the rules to take advantage of the weaker entities -who often provide the tangible service.

Uber is a perfect example of such a powerful selfish organisation, and their international record bears testimony of this.

I understand the difference between Uber as a foreign entity (and the effect of the ATO court case forcing GST to be paid) vs GoCatch as a local company, but (subject addition information you may have), I think this is an unrelated issue to an entity charging a 25% commission on a tax that exists by statute of the Commonwealth of Australia.

That's my take ...and I may well be proven wrong as I ask further information and gain more knowledge, but instinct tells me their actions are a crock, and I intend to pursue the matter to find out.

Look forward to your comments.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## g00r (Mar 10, 2015)

I was fortunate to be driving when rates were worthwhile and before GST even applied to Uber fares. 
So, not only was I not remitting GST on the whole fare, but I was claiming input credits on all of my expenses. 
Uber was new and shiney and didn't have the perception issues it does these days.
When I signed up, I agreed to pay their 20% commission.
So, when you say 


BabyBoomer said:


> It would appease me if they stopped illegally (AFAICT) charging commission on the GST and charge it only on the total service amount drivers provide.


 this is the way it has always been done.
As yet, I don't believe you have actually provided proof supporting your view that it is illegal.

The ATO considered the matter and released their interpretation and rulings that took effect 1 Aug 2015.
From then, the law was clear, the driver is the supplier, Uber is a business cost



BabyBoomer said:


> It would appease me even more if they reduced their current effective 27.5% commission on the services hardworking drivers provide, back to a more reasonable 20% -I mean how much does it really cost to power a few servers and feed some quality IT support staff (yes I digress).


That's an over-simplistic view.
- $400 driver sign up bonuses
- Providing legal council to Mr Bennett here in Vic for his Taxi Directorate challenge
- $20 passenger incentives to build up the customer base that they have today
- Paying driver fines ($1900 a piece) in the early days

That isn't an easy or cheap feat.



BabyBoomer said:


> In relation to other companies (facilitators) who may explicitly charge a service fee on the GST (no firsthand knowledge who they may be), they should also be liable to reimburse this cost to the actual service providers IMHO, regardless of how long they have adopted this (what I believe is) illegal action.


The closest thing to my knowledge that is law, relates to businesses quoting prices. They must quote prices to consumers inclusive of the GST, but business to business they're free to quote either. However not even this supports your argument either as
1. You're operating a business
2. When you sign up, Uber didn't quote a GST inclusive or exclusive price
3. In fact, it wasn't until late 2016 that Uber even mentioned 'tax' at all.

If you're confident in your crusade, then maybe time to consult a tax attorney. However until you do so, I don't think it's fair right to use the terms 'theft' or 'illegal' when describing Uber & GST without proof or solid basis.


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

g00r said:


> I was fortunate to be driving when rates were worthwhile and before GST even applied to Uber fares.
> So, not only was I not remitting GST on the whole fare, but I was claiming input credits on all of my expenses.
> Uber was new and shiney and didn't have the perception issues it does these days.
> When I signed up, I agreed to pay their 20% commission.
> ...


I take your point about costs -my example was tongue in cheek.

I guess that most of their losses relate to expenses such as autonomous vehicle costs, which are designed to render drivers superfluous, and their Au operations are profitable.

I stand by my claim that historically Uber has shown little concern for the welfare of drivers unless they are pushed by law, so I don't feel any particular obligation to be respectful towards the organisation on this forum.

You sound like a retired lawyer with your depth of knowledge, and you would know that defamation laws do not apply to a large company, however I do not seek to defame them. If a company acts outside the law then, surely this can be described as illegal and I make it clear that this is my opinion only. Similarly, taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft AFAICT.

Either way, I'm sure you would agree (from your comments) that Uber don't seem to have their GST obligations functioning correctly.

It will be a cold day in hell before I waste money on legal advice for the pittance received from Uber, but I will make relevant enquiries as I see fit.

In any case, Uber's business structure may well collapse or be substantially modified in Au subject to the FWC inquiry.

Like everyone else who has posted, I don't need to quote statutes on this forum and similarly no one has proved to me by statute that my position is incorrect.

I need a lecture from anyone about what to think or say, but thanks anyway.

I'm now tired of this jousting and won't respond to this thread further unless I have new info.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

g00r said:


> I was fortunate to be driving when rates were worthwhile and before GST even applied to Uber fares.
> So, not only was I not remitting GST on the whole fare, but I was claiming input credits on all of my expenses.


You understand that this is tax fraud don't you? To claim input tax credits you must be registered for GST, and if you are registered for GST you must pay GST on any taxable supplies that you have made.


BabyBoomer said:


> Like everyone else who has posted, I don't need to quote statutes on this forum and similarly no one has proved to me by statute that my position is incorrect.





http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/antsasta1999402/s9.40.html said:


> *A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 - SECT 9.40*
> *Liability for GST on taxable supplies*
> You must pay the GST payable on any * taxable supply that you make.


If something is _payable_, that means it hasn't been _paid_ yet. No GST has been paid until _you _pay the ATO. The implications of that are quite clear to me: you haven't received any GST from riders, so it's not possible for Uber to have stolen any of it. And you would also have to ignore the fact that you agreed that Uber can take the amount that they do.

It is the High Court's view that the cost of the GST is _passed on to_ customers, not that it is _paid by_ customers, and that view is completely consistent with the legislation:


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/41.html said:


> *Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Ltd [2012] HCA 41 (2 October 2012)*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## χ²(1) (Jun 1, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> Card terminal providers have been charging a commission on the amount paid by customers since day one.


For reference, here is information on card transaction surcharges:

http://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-...payments-regulation-qa-conclusions-paper.html


----------



## BabyBoomer (Feb 28, 2017)

UberDriverAU said:


> You understand that this is tax fraud don't you? To claim input tax credits you must be registered for GST, and if you are registered for GST you must pay GST on any taxable supplies that you have made.
> 
> If something is _payable_, that means it hasn't been _paid_ yet. No GST has been paid until _you _pay the ATO. The implications of that are quite clear to me: you haven't received any GST from riders, so it's not possible for Uber to have stolen any of it. And you would also have to ignore the fact that you agreed that Uber can take the amount that they do.
> 
> It is the High Court's view that the cost of the GST is _passed on to_ customers, not that it is _paid by_ customers, and that view is completely consistent with the legislation:


Cheers UDAU,

I understand what you are saying, but no matter what the legislation is and how it is worded, twisted or convoluted, sooner or later the customer has paid the full amount including the GST and the facilitator takes a cut of this total.

My argument is that this is unfair, regardless of contracts signed that may agree to it or decisions made that may condone it.

I plan to contact the ACCC (and others) regarding this as suggested.



χ²(1) said:


> For reference, here is information on card transaction surcharges:
> 
> http://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-...payments-regulation-qa-conclusions-paper.html


Thanks (x) squared ...will look at it.

Cheers,

BB


----------



## g00r (Mar 10, 2015)

UberDriverAU said:


> You understand that this is tax fraud don't you? To claim input tax credits you must be registered for GST, and if you are registered for GST you must pay GST on any taxable supplies that you have made.


My company was registered for GST. 
The ATO issued an amnesty while they decided what to do with ridesharing.


----------



## Cyber Snowflake (Jul 5, 2017)

.​This is a very good thread. Thank you 

I believe the real pivot for uber & drivers will not be payment/non-payment of GST or tax considerations.
I believe uber's Achilles heel will be a case or several drafted within the frameworks of unconscionable conduct.
These cases are drawn out so they may not see fruition before uber's inevitable demise.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

g00r said:


> My company was registered for GST.
> The ATO issued an amnesty while they decided what to do with ridesharing.


It was an amnesty from requiring GST registration prior to the 1st of August 2015. To the letter of the law, every single Uber trip ever taken in Australia has GST payable on it, including those prior to this date. If you were registered for GST prior to that date, it is expected that you will pay GST on Uber trips you made prior to that date. It would be silly to think the ATO would be fine with you claiming GST credits on your inputs, but not paying GST debits on your outputs. Considering they now have details of every Uber trip taken in Australia, I think you should expect some correspondence from the ATO about not paying GST when you should have been.


----------



## uber_driver (Apr 6, 2016)

right from the begining


----------

