# GST



## Sydney South (Jan 31, 2017)

Hello All,

Just starting driving Uber last BAS quarter and are completing my BAS.

I have heard different stories with regards to the BAS. Where some say that you calculate the GST on your money received as a payout. Where I have seen further reference to the GST on the UBER charges to the PAX.

Do you calculate your GST component on the amount of the UBER fares?

Or on the amount that you are paid from UBER = PAX fare - less the UBER commission?


----------



## Thing (Oct 7, 2016)

Calculate your GST on the full fare not what Uber pays you. You have to pay Ubers GST on their 25% commission as well


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

Carefully read these Tax Office guidelines:

https://www.ato.gov.au/business/gst...rough-ride-sourcing-and-your-tax-obligations/.


----------



## Sydney South (Jan 31, 2017)

Thank you. Yes have also spoken to the ATO to confirm.

Also have been told that you then claim the commission as a deduction.

Has anyone generated a sample BAS?


----------



## whocareaboutPAX (Apr 11, 2016)

What logic could you possibly apply other than paying GST on the full fare?

Did you read your Uber contract? They are nothing more than a mere facilitator you pay fees to. As they are not a registered company in Australia, you cannot claim an input credit. Instead, that portion is 100% income tax deductible.

Pay GST on the full fare, that is 1/11 of your fares + surge + any fees/tolls.


----------



## Sydney South (Jan 31, 2017)

Thank you,
Yes, that is what I am getting at. That the Uber commission is tax deductible. Similar to to laundry on supplied uniforms or tools etc.......

That is the logic that I am using.........


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

Sydney South said:


> Thank you,
> Yes, that is what I am getting at. That the Uber commission is tax deductible. Similar to to laundry on supplied uniforms or tools etc.......
> 
> That is the logic that I am using.........


Yes, the commission is tax deductible for income tax purposes.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

whocareaboutPAX said:


> What logic could you possibly apply other than paying GST on the full fare?
> 
> Did you read your Uber contract? They are nothing more than a mere facilitator you pay fees to. As they are not a registered company in Australia, you cannot claim an input credit. Instead, that portion is 100% income tax deductible.
> 
> Pay GST on the full fare, that is 1/11 of your fares + surge + any fees/tolls.


If drivers are correctly labelled employees or agents of Uber, then it's Uber who'd need to pay GST on the full fare. If you don't think it's possible our courts could make such a finding, then you have no clue about the law.


----------



## whocareaboutPAX (Apr 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> If drivers are correctly labelled employees or agents of Uber, then it's Uber who'd need to pay GST on the full fare. If you don't think it's possible our courts could make such a finding, then you have no clue about the law.


Ahh, UDAU at it again with his "I know everything, everybody else is wrong" attitude.
As of right now - we are partners or contractors. I mentioned nothing about the courts, and I interpret the law as it is. You'll find, I am far more qualified to speak about the law than a professional "proud" uber guru. Unless of course you have a law degree, in which case I can finally understand why you have your "never ever wrong" attitude.










I didn't have the reading or comprehension capacity to continue after semester 2 in 2013. So please, continue on with your little manhunt in an attempt to discredit whatever I put on this forum. I still don't know why???!?!?!!!


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

whocareaboutPAX said:


> Ahh, UDAU at it again with his "I know everything, everybody else is wrong" attitude.
> As of right now - we are partners or contractors. I mentioned nothing about the courts, and I interpret the law as it is. You'll find, I am far more qualified to speak about the law than a professional "proud" uber guru. Unless of course you have a law degree, in which case I can finally understand why you have your "never ever wrong" attitude.
> 
> View attachment 99711
> ...


You asked a question, I gave an answer. My line about having no clue was intended as a general "you", rather than you specifically. People should be aware that Uber won't necessarily get what they want, and we might not have to worry about GST forever.


----------



## whocareaboutPAX (Apr 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> You asked a question, I gave an answer. My line about having no clue was intended as a general "you", rather than you specifically. People should be aware that Uber won't necessarily get what they want, and we might not have to worry about GST forever.


You of all people, being so sure with the law and all - should know that the law should be interpreted for what it is TODAY. And TODAY, people must pay GST. The future may have changes - but as of now and as far as the ruling made last week regarding GST goes, we must pay GST. Unless the person i.e Sydney South - decide to go to court to seek that he is an agent or employee, he has to pay GST. I gave an answer to that question, not to rough on about legal nonsense.

Majority of uber drivers are inherently daft - if you start talking in the future to them, they may actually base their conclusions off that. Again, you already know this.....


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

whocareaboutPAX said:


> You of all people, being so sure with the law and all - should know that the law should be interpreted for what it is TODAY. And TODAY, people must pay GST. The future may have changes - but as of now and as far as the ruling made last week regarding GST goes, we must pay GST. Unless the person i.e Sydney South - decide to go to court to seek that he is an agent or employee, he has to pay GST. I gave an answer to that question, not to rough on about legal nonsense.


As of now, no court in Australia has made a ruling about whether or not we are employees. It is possible that a court would find that we are employees, and it's possible that a court wouldn't. I expressed no certainty about a legal conclusion in my post:


UberDriverAU said:


> If drivers are correctly labelled employees or agents of Uber, then it's Uber who'd need to pay GST on the full fare. If you don't think it's possible our courts could make such a finding, then you have no clue about the law.


If you have a look at some of the decided cases in recent years, you'd see it's entirely possible that Uber could be found to be an employer. Where an employers simply asserts that their workers aren't employees and refuses to pay entitlements, etc, it doesn't necessarily make their workers something other than an employee. The totality of the relationship has to match the chosen label ("employee", "agent", "independent contractor", etc) before a court will agree with it. One of the consequences of a court making the decision that we are employees, is that in providing the service we do, it would be _on behalf _of Uber. That would mean it is they, and not we, who would be liable for the GST payments. That would also mean that we had not incurred a GST liability in our own names, the ATO would be obliged to refund us, and Uber would owe back taxes instead.


whocareaboutPAX said:


> Majority of uber drivers are inherently daft - if you start talking in the future to them, they may actually base their conclusions off that. Again, you already know this.....


That's not my problem. Should we create a separate forum for those of us drivers who can acknowledge how things are currently handled, and what future possibilities are?


----------



## χ²(1) (Jun 1, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> That's not my problem. Should we create a separate forum for those of us drivers who can acknowledge how things are currently handled, and what future possibilities are?


Staying on-topic would suffice. The original poster did not inquire about future possibilities, only current ones.


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

*The Australian Taxation Office has issued the following statement via its Small Business Newsroom:

17 February 2017*

The Federal Court has agreed that ride-sourcing is taxi travel.

If you have a ride-sourcing enterprise, we want to help you get your tax right. You need to:


keep records
have an Australian business number (ABN)
be registered for goods and services tax (GST), regardless of how much you earn
lodge business activity statements (BAS)
pay the GST portion of the full fare received from passengers for each trip you provide
include your income from ride-sourcing in your income tax returns.
Drivers are also entitled to claim income tax deductions and GST credits (for GST paid) on expenses (you may need to apportion these so you only claim amounts relating to providing ride-sourcing services).

Our data-matching activities will help us identify if you provide ride-sourcing services. If you do, you may receive a letter from us explaining your tax obligations.

(https://www.ato.gov.au/Newsroom/sma...ovide-ride-sourcing-services-/?sbnews20170222)


----------



## Paul Collins (Dec 12, 2016)

whocareaboutPAX said:


> You of all people, being so sure with the law and all - should know that the law should be interpreted for what it is TODAY. And TODAY, people must pay GST. The future may have changes - but as of now and as far as the ruling made last week regarding GST goes, we must pay GST. Unless the person i.e Sydney South - decide to go to court to seek that he is an agent or employee, he has to pay GST. I gave an answer to that question, not to rough on about legal nonsense.
> 
> Majority of uber drivers are inherently daft - if you start talking in the future to them, they may actually base their conclusions off that. Again, you already know this.....


Ah the 2015 ATO ruling is when all drivers had to start paying GST. The recent legal challenge being thrown out changes nothing.

And 'if' the was a successful case to class drivers as 'employees' then uber would announce two things.

1. Their commission just went up to 90%.
2. They may pull out of Australia in total.

Neither is a good option for any driver.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Paul Collins said:


> Ah the 2015 ATO ruling is when all drivers had to start paying GST. The recent legal challenge being thrown out changes nothing.
> 
> And 'if' the was a successful case to class drivers as 'employees' then uber would announce two things.
> 
> ...


Put their commission up to 90%? That's hardly going to happen. No driver would drive for 10% of fares. If drivers were found to be employees, then two things would happen. Drivers would get a refund of the GST they had paid because it wasn't their liability after all, and Uber would have to back pay drivers to bring them up to minimum wage rates, pay super, etc. Drivers certainly wouldn't get nothing. And if Uber left Australia, there are certainly others waiting in the wings to take their place.


----------



## Paul Collins (Dec 12, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> Put their commission up to 90%? That's hardly going to happen. No driver would drive for 10% of fares. If drivers were found to be employees, then two things would happen. Drivers would get a refund of the GST they had paid because it wasn't their liability after all, and Uber would have to back pay drivers to bring them up to minimum wage rates, pay super, etc. Drivers certainly wouldn't get nothing. And if Uber left Australia, there are certainly others waiting in the wings to take their place.


1 Uber will never employ drivers. They will leave before that.
2. No judgement will be retrospective and current drivers will never get any 'backpay' etc
3. We are not employees according to the ATO and the TWU.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Paul Collins said:


> 1 Uber will never employ drivers. They will leave before that.


It may well be that Uber has, legally speaking, been employing drivers all along.


Paul Collins said:


> 2. No judgement will be retrospective and current drivers will never get any 'backpay' etc


If our courts find we are employees, then yes, of course we'll get back pay if Uber hasn't been paying minimum entitlements. Seriously Paul, have a think about what you're suggesting. If what you're saying is true, then any employer could simply refuse to pay what they're contractually/legally obliged to and say "well sorry, you can't make that apply retrospectively". Your notion of "retrospective" isn't applicable here, because we're not talking about applying laws that existed after the fact.


Paul Collins said:


> 3. We are not employees according to the ATO and the TWU.


If you fill out the ATOs employee/contractor tool, it does indeed say that we are employees. In any case, the ATO and TWU are not courts, so their opinion isn't the one that counts.



Paul Collins said:


> 2. No judgement will be retrospective and current drivers will never get any 'backpay' etc


This is no different from saying we don't have to pay any GST before the court handed down it's judgement last week on the 17th. If someone hasn't been paying GST, of course they'll be expected to pay any GST they're liable for prior to that date, plus interest, plus penalties, etc.


----------



## Instyle (Oct 18, 2014)

Paul Collins said:


> Ah the 2015 ATO ruling is when all drivers had to start paying GST. The recent legal challenge being thrown out changes nothing.
> 
> And 'if' the was a successful case to class drivers as 'employees' then uber would announce two things.
> 
> ...


You mean Uber "MAY" announce one of two things. It's merely speculatory, though if and if commissions went up to 90% for an employee basis, it wouldn't matter as drivers would be paid casual hourly rates for on app and off app. 1hr online 1ping = $30 + 10% of trip. Sounds good


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Instyle said:


> You mean Uber "MAY" announce one of two things. It's merely speculatory, though if and if commissions went up to 90% for an employee basis, it wouldn't matter as drivers would be paid casual hourly rates for on app and off app. 1hr online 1ping = $30 + 10% of trip. Sounds good


Why do you believe that we'd get paid when off trip?


----------



## Instyle (Oct 18, 2014)

UberDriverAU said:


> Why do you believe that we'd get paid when off trip?


Speculating an employment model if Uber were to retain most of the fare based on Paul's theory.


----------



## Paul Collins (Dec 12, 2016)

Instyle said:


> Speculating an employment model if Uber were to remain most of the fare based on Paul's theory.


Be clear, uber will NEVER employ drivers.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Paul Collins said:


> Be clear, uber will NEVER employ drivers.


Lol Paul, you're a funny guy. I'll agree that Uber will never _voluntarily_ call drivers employees. It's entirely possible that at law drivers have been employees _all along_. It's up to Uber to make sure the label they give us is accurate. As time goes by, the more I'm convinced this is actually going to be a moot point anyway. When you consider things like:

(1) Uber continues to hemorrhage hefty sums of money. The vast majority of their cost structure is variable costs (ie. drivers), so there is little scope to exploit economies of scale.

(2) A terrible culture, from the top down. Consider the recent sexual harassment allegations, where very clear harassment was unashamedly suppressed by management.

(3) Their self-driving car ambitions are in ruins if the allegations of stealing technology from Google are true. The CEO says self-driving cars are an existential issue for Uber.

(4) The worker misclassification lawsuits continue to mount around the world.

The biggest risk to Uber, is itself, in my humble opinion. The "take no prisoners" attitude may have gotten it this far, but when you make a fair portion of the world your enemy, your continued existence is far from a certainty.


----------



## Paul Collins (Dec 12, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> Lol Paul, you're a funny guy. I'll agree that Uber will never _voluntarily_ call drivers employees. It's entirely possible that at law drivers have been employees _all along_. It's up to Uber to make sure the label they give us is accurate. As time goes by, the more I'm convinced this is actually going to be a moot point anyway. When you consider things like:
> 
> (1) Uber continues to hemorrhage hefty sums of money. The vast majority of their cost structure is variable costs (ie. drivers), so there is little scope to exploit economies of scale.
> 
> ...


I get all that and still the fact remain, uber will NEVER employ drivers.


----------



## Instyle (Oct 18, 2014)

Paul Collins said:


> I get all that and still the fact remain, uber will NEVER employ drivers.


Exactly why they need to loosen the reins if they wish to remain that way. The vast majority are not saying they want to be an employee, so don't fret! Drivers are merely wanting true contractor conditions.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

Instyle said:


> Drivers are merely wanting true contractor conditions.


Which have never existed and will never exist. Can anyone imagine drivers being able to set their own rates? Uber wants to retain complete control like an employer has, yet claim we're not employees.


----------



## Taseer (Nov 3, 2017)

You can calculate uber gst by going to website fast online tax return


----------

