# Uber vs ATO - GST Court Case



## UberDriverAU

For those that are interested, here's a link to Uber's court case challenging the ATOs ruling that Uber drivers provide "taxi travel":

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD904/2015/actions

There was a directions hearing a couple of days ago, and it looks like proceedings will take place between the 20th and 22nd of July 2016.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

Let's hope Uber start paying their share of taxes like I do as a driver.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Modern-Day-Slavery said:


> Let's hope Uber start paying their share of taxes like I do as a driver.


That aint' going to happen any time soon unfortunately as most of their share of the fares gets siphoned off to tax havens.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

UberDriverAU said:


> That aint' going to happen any time soon unfortunately as most of their share of the fares gets siphoned off to tax havens.


So why do they get to take 20% of our income without any risk or tax liability?? This make me really angry


----------



## UberDriverAU

Modern-Day-Slavery said:


> So why do they get to take 20% of our income without any risk or tax liability?? This make me really angry


Because they can pretty much. In some markets they take as much as 30% for UberX. I don't know what it's like over there in Sydney, but they're launching UberXL here in Perth and taking 28%.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Anyway, if Uber does end up winning this case, it'll be one less thing to worry about as a driver. No BAS statements or GST to worry about, only income tax.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

UberDriverAU said:


> Because they can pretty much. In some markets they take as much as 30% for UberX. I don't know what it's like over there in Sydney, but they're launching UberXL here in Perth and taking 28%.


Hmmmm .. You would think the commission would be the same no matter what. How does it cost them more for their computer to book an SUV over a sedan??


----------



## UberDriverAU

Modern-Day-Slavery said:


> Hmmmm .. You would think the commission would be the same no matter what. How does it cost them more for their computer to book an SUV over a sedan??


It doesn't cost them anything extra. They're doing it to see what drivers are willing to accept. The fares are 50% more than UberX, but drivers only get 33% more while Uber gets 110% more compared with UberX. In short, it's simply not worth doing because a vehicle suitable for UberXL (6 seater) costs a lot more to operate than one suitable for UberX, plus they expect you to accept UberX trips at UberX prices, even though your running costs are much higher. Anyone who's prepared to do it must be crazy I think.


----------



## Modern-Day-Slavery

UberDriverAU said:


> It doesn't cost them anything extra. They're doing it to see what drivers are willing to accept. The fares are 50% more than UberX, but drivers only get 33% more while Uber gets 110% more compared with UberX. In short, it's simply not worth doing because a vehicle suitable for UberXL (6 seater) costs a lot more to operate than one suitable for UberX, plus they expect you to accept UberX trips at UberX prices, even though your running costs are much higher. Anyone who's prepared to do it must be crazy I think.


yeah, like someone who bought a car for Uber before prices went down and are now stuck in the situation


----------



## MyRedUber

As far as I understand the court action, the basis of Uber's claim is that the Act specifically refers to "taxi", "limousine", and similar words. Uber's claim is that "ridesharing" is not a "taxi" or "limousine" service. We all know that's BS; UberX drivers provide exactly the same service as on-demand taxi and hire car drivers.

If the court decides in the strict interpretation of those words, maybe Uber will win. But I expect it far more likely that the court will decide on a wider interpretation of these words to describe the on-demand passenger service provided, not the sign on the roof of the car.

Either way, that will not exclude UberX drivers from responsibility for collecting GST on behalf of the ATO. It would just mean that only those drivers whose total annual revenue is over $75K would be required to collect GST for the ATO.

BUT, that would then leave a very big problem for Uber, its drivers and our passengers. There would need to be two fare scales, one including GST charged by those drivers taking over $75K and a lower fare scale for those drivers taking less than $75K. We can not all charge the same fares with some drivers keeping more and some drivers having to send some to the ATO. In my discussions with ATO officers, that's precisely the reason that the ATO ruled that all taxi and on-demand hire car drivers should collect GST from the first $, not subject to the $75K minimum.

And, if that were to happen, part-time taxi and hire car drivers would have a very good case to be treated the same as part-time UberX drivers.

It won't happen.

And to those people referring to the time taken for this case through the court, everything so far have been procedural matters. The court is yet to hear any substantive argument.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> As far as I understand the court action, the basis of Uber's claim is that the Act specifically refers to "taxi", "limousine", and similar words. Uber's claim is that "ridesharing" is not a "taxi" or "limousine" service. We all know that's BS; UberX drivers provide exactly the same service as on-demand taxi and hire car drivers.
> 
> If the court decides in the strict interpretation of those words, maybe Uber will win. But I expect it far more likely that the court will decide on a wider interpretation of these words to describe the on-demand passenger service provided, not the sign on the roof of the car.
> 
> Either way, that will not exclude UberX drivers from responsibility for collecting GST on behalf of the ATO. It would just mean that only those drivers whose total annual revenue is over $75K would be required to collect GST for the ATO.


Clearly very few UberX vehicles could be classified as a "limousine". The question that will be decided in this case is not "Do taxis and UberX vehicles provide the same service?", it is "Are UberX vehicles a 'taxi'?". The ATOs is basically saying "You are a taxi because you are transporting passengers for fares", but the GST legislation says 'taxi travel' is "travel that involves transporting passengers, by taxi or limousine, for fares". It may seem like a subtle distinction, but the legislation specifically leaves open the possibility that you can offer services similar to that of a taxi, but you are not offering 'taxi travel' if you are not a 'taxi' and not a 'limousine'.



MyRedUber said:


> BUT, that would then leave a very big problem for Uber, its drivers and our passengers. There would need to be two fare scales, one including GST charged by those drivers taking over $75K and a lower fare scale for those drivers taking less than $75K. We can not all charge the same fares with some drivers keeping more and some drivers having to send some to the ATO. In my discussions with ATO officers, that's precisely the reason that the ATO ruled that all taxi and on-demand hire car drivers should collect GST from the first $, not subject to the $75K minimum.
> 
> And, if that were to happen, part-time taxi and hire car drivers would have a very good case to be treated the same as part-time UberX drivers.


You are assuming that there isn't a solution to this. There is a way that customers can be charged the same price and GST can be paid by drivers that are required to, and all without seeing any driver disadvantaged.

Uber would be well positioned to implement something like this, because they have their hands on every transaction. In essence, you need to know what percentage of overall revenue needs to include GST. If the split is 75% excluding GST, 25% including GST, then what is required is a 2.27% surcharge (1/11 x 25%) on each and every fare. This surcharge would be collected by Uber, and distributed only to the drivers that are registered for GST. An example:

*$75,000 in fares, excluding GST*
Fares: $75,000.00
Surcharge: $1,704.55
GST: $0.00
Uber Fee: $15,000.00
Payout: $58,295.45
Payout less GST: $58,295.45 (77.73% of Fares)

*$25,000 in fares, including GST*
Fares: $25,000.00
Surcharge: $568.18
GST: $2,272.73
Uber Fee: $5,000.00
Payout: $21,704.55
Payout less GST: $19,431.82 (77.73% of Fares)

*Totals*
Fares: $100,000
Surcharge: $2,272.73
GST: $2,272.73
Uber Fee: $20,000
Payout: $80,000
Payout less GST: $77,727.27 (77.73% of Fares)

By structuring everything like this, there would be no need for two separate fare scales, and no driver would be disadvantaged by being registered for GST.



MyRedUber said:


> And to those people referring to the time taken for this case through the court, everything so far have been procedural matters. The court is yet to hear any substantive argument.


I'd say a final and binding decision will be years away. I can't see either side accepting a loss in the Federal Court. As you say, only procedural matters have been dealt with so far, the first round of this fight is due between the 20th and 22nd of July 2016, almost a year after the case was originated by Uber.


----------



## MyRedUber

UberDriverAU said:


> but the GST legislation says 'taxi travel' is


That is the essence of what the court will need to decide, whether the Act is specific to taxis, yellow cars with signage and lights on the roof, or more broadly applied to on-demand passenger carrying services. That would include, as it does now, all taxis and all hire cars who do not limit themselves to prebooked work such as weddings.

FWIW, right now, not all Hire Cars are considered limousines, but they are still required to collect GST from the first $. So that Act has already been interpreted quite broadly, more broadly than the specific words "taxi" and "limousine".

I'm sure that the court will take the broader view of all vehicles and their drivers providing on-demand passenger carrying services. The terms "taxi" and "limousine" in the Act were intended to refer to the full range of vehicles from the lower class taxi to the five star limousine, not to limit the Act to those two specific types of vehicle.



UberDriverAU said:


> This surcharge would be collected by Uber, and distributed only to the drivers that are registered for GST


Sorry, that's not going to happen, ever. If the court decides in favour of the $75K minimum, there will be two fare scales, and lots of angry customers, and cancelled rides. There's no way that any driver or Uber is going to be allowed to keep even one dollar of tax collected from passengers.

Any situation other than the ATO's current interpretation and application of the Act is unworkable.


----------



## MyRedUber

GST has always been a tax on the retail customer's payment. Always has been, always will be.
Your surcharge suggestion has all customers paying partial GST, some to drivers who are liable to collect GST, some to drivers who are not. Does not fit with GST legislation in any way.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> That is the essence of what the court will need to decide, whether the Act is specific to taxis, yellow cars with signage and lights on the roof, or more broadly applied to on-demand passenger carrying services. That would include, as it does now, all taxis and all hire cars who do not limit themselves to prebooked work such as weddings.
> 
> FWIW, right now, not all Hire Cars are considered limousines, but they are still required to collect GST from the first $. So that Act has already been interpreted quite broadly, more broadly than the specific words "taxi" and "limousine".
> 
> I'm sure that the court will take the broader view of all vehicles and their drivers providing on-demand passenger carrying services. The terms "taxi" and "limousine" in the Act were intended to refer to the full range of vehicles from the lower class taxi to the five star limousine, not to limit the Act to those two specific types of vehicle.


The whole origin of the word "taxi" (as a type of vehicle) goes back to "taximeter cabriolet". This later became known as a taxi-cab, taxicab, or taxi. You couldn't correctly call a vehicle a taxicab or taxi if there wasn't a taximeter installed. Other "for hire" vehicles were not referred to as taxicabs or taxis, but could correctly be called cabs. The ATOs is also arguing that Uber vehicles are public hire cars, when they are much more like limousines which are private hire cars. There is plenty of scope to argue that Uber vehicles are not "taxi" vehicles, I don't think it's as clear cut as some people believe it is.



MyRedUber said:


> Sorry, that's not going to happen, ever. If the court decides in favour of the $75K minimum, there will be two fare scales, and lots of angry customers, and cancelled rides. There's no way that any driver or Uber is going to be allowed to keep even one dollar of tax collected from passengers.


Uber will never charge anything but one fare level for UberX, and there will be a small percentage of angry drivers if they don't implement a system like I propose. Uber doesn't care if drivers get angry, but they do care if riders get angry. Angry riders potentially won't use Uber again, an angry driver who never drivers for Uber again is far less of a concern. Unless drivers have other business income under the same ABN, there will not be many drivers who will exceed the $1,442.31 in fares per week required to pass the $75K per year threshold.



MyRedUber said:


> GST has always been a tax on the retail customer's payment. Always has been, always will be.
> Your surcharge suggestion has all customers paying partial GST, some to drivers who are liable to collect GST, some to drivers who are not. Does not fit with GST legislation in any way.


A surcharge is not a tax, and only those drivers who are registered for GST would need to collect and remit GST. Uber would in essence be giving GST registered drivers a rebate to cover their GST obligations. In all cases, customers would be paying the correct price, and drivers would be collecting the right amount of GST. There is absolutely no conflict with the GST legislation by arranging things like this. If you want to make that claim, then kindly point out where in the legislation the conflict is. Here is a link to the act:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/antsasta1999402/

Knock yourself out!


----------



## MyRedUber

UberDriverAU said:


> "taximeter cabriolet"


I don't think our courts will take account of the origin of the term in deciding whether we UberX drivers do on-demand passenger work. Anyhow, you do have a modern version of the taxi-meter in your car, in the Uber app. It measures time and distance and calculates the fare from that, just like a real taxi-meter in a real taxi.



UberDriverAU said:


> The ATOs is also arguing that Uber vehicles are public hire cars, when they are much more like limousines which are private hire cars


All hire cars, except those exclusively doing prebooked work such as weddings or funerals, are already collecting GST from the first dollar, just like taxis. Any hire car that does even one fare not prebooked, they collect GST. Drivers working with Uber do not do any prebooked work. In fact, Uber's systems actively discourage prebooked work.

And, some of the cars I've seen used for UberX, there's no way anyone would describe them as limousines. Even my car, which would have qualified for HC plates if I'd been quick enough, I'd never describe as a limousine.



UberDriverAU said:


> A surcharge is not a tax,


Your idea is fanciful, never going to happen. You're allowing your mind to wander into "wouldn't the world be nice if ..." territory.
And Uber would never agree to get involved in anything like that. It takes them too close to employer / employee relationship, which they avoid at all cost.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> I don't think our courts will take account of the origin of the term in deciding whether we UberX drivers do on-demand passenger work. Anyhow, you do have a modern version of the taxi-meter in your car, in the Uber app. It measures time and distance and calculates the fare from that, just like a real taxi-meter in a real taxi.


Doing on-demand passenger work is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this case is whether an Uber vehicle is legally considered to be a 'taxi' or 'limousine'. If the answer to that is no, then it doesn't matter what services such a vehicle provides, they will be afforded the $75K threshold.

I would also suggest that the fare calculations do not take place on your phone. That takes place once the trip has ended, and it happens on Uber's servers which are in a different country. Your phone does measure time and distance, but it never calculates or displays fares. So no, there is no taximeter in your car.



MyRedUber said:


> Your idea is fanciful, never going to happen. You're allowing your mind to wander into "wouldn't the world be nice if ..." territory.
> And Uber would never agree to get involved in anything like that. It takes them too close to employer / employee relationship, which they avoid at all cost.


If the mind never wanders, the mind never discovers a better way of doing things. Personally I don't care if Uber does or doesn't implement such a system. The reality is that there are not a lot of drivers who would be required to register for GST if their sole business activity is driving for UberX. Uber is never going to charge one price for GST registered drivers, and a different price for everyone else. They will charge one price to customers, and this will effectively turn the GST into a 9.09% revenue tax for GST registered drivers.


----------



## frfu8670

Keeping tabs on this thread..


----------



## Instyle

The ATO don't believe the typical UberX car is a Taxi or Limousine, what they do think is your providing "Taxi Travel" with your vehicle. Point A to point B determined by a customer for a fare.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Instyle said:


> The ATO don't believe the typical UberX car is a Taxi or Limousine, what they do think is your providing "Taxi Travel" with your vehicle. Point A to point B determined by a customer for a fare.


They must believe that UberX vehicles are a "taxi", because that's how the legislation is framed. "Taxi travel" as defined by the GST legislation is "by taxi or limousine".


----------



## Instyle

UberDriverAU said:


> They must believe that UberX vehicles are a "taxi", because that's how the legislation is framed. "Taxi travel" as defined by the GST legislation is "by taxi or limousine".


I get it, though same result. Clutching at straws I'd suggest.

Airport, General and Tourist services (except scheduled routes) all are required to charge and collect GST regardless of turnover, they are neither Taxi or Limousine.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Instyle said:


> I get it, though same result. Clutching at straws I'd suggest.
> 
> Airport, General and Tourist services (except scheduled routes) all are required to charge and collect GST regardless of turnover, they are neither Taxi or Limousine.


It looks like there will be wider implications for other industry segments too then.


----------



## MyRedUber

Instyle said:


> Clutching at straws I'd suggest


I agree that UberDriverUA is the one clutching at straws. The ATO has ruled that UberX drivers are to collect GST from the first $, because we are providing a taxi service, even though we're not driving "taxis". I'm sure the court will agree with that interpretation.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> I agree that UberDriverUA is the one clutching at straws. The ATO has ruled that UberX drivers are to collect GST from the first $, because we are providing a taxi service, even though we're not driving "taxis". I'm sure the court will agree with that interpretation.


I'm not clutching at any straws actually. The ATO is relying upon an entry in a dictionary as the basis for their guidance. Other dictionaries provide a different definition of "taxi". Here's the definition of "taxi" according to the Oxford dictionary:



http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/taxi said:


> A motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter.


It should be clear that if the ATO had looked up the Oxford dictionary rather than a different one, they'd have issued guidance saying that GST registration isn't mandatory for UberX vehicles until $75K is reached.

It's food for thought, and it's not as clear cut as you believe it is.


----------



## MyRedUber

I don't think the ATO use dictionaries. They ask Dr Google.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Evidently not!


----------



## Instyle

Taxi travel is defined in the GST Act to mean “travel that involves transporting passengers, by taxi or limousine, for fares”. “Taxi” is not defined in the legislation and must therefore take its ordinary meaning. In a 2002 Interpretative Decision, the
ATO referred to the Macquarie Dictionary definition of taxi as meaning “a motor car for public hire, especially one fitted with a taximeter”. 

Taximeter definition, a device fitted to a taxicab or other vehicle, for automatically computing and indicating the fare due. Sounds pretty similar to a phone with an app fitted to the car via a holder that automatically caculates and indicates the fare due.

What Uber are play at with this GST business is childish and I hope they get slammed in court and made a fool. There app already has the provisions in place to charge a sales tax and note the amounts seperately on the csv statement file as done in some US cities.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Instyle said:


> Taxi travel is defined in the GST Act to mean "travel that involves transporting passengers, by taxi or limousine, for fares". "Taxi" is not defined in the legislation and must therefore take its ordinary meaning. In a 2002 Interpretative Decision, the
> ATO referred to the Macquarie Dictionary definition of taxi as meaning "a motor car for public hire, especially one fitted with a taximeter".


That's what I'm referring to. The choice of dictionary can obviously effect the intepretation of the law where terms aren't defined in the legislation. Btw, I'm not saying the ATO is wrong or right in their interpretation. I do think though, that there is genuine scope to argue the ATO has got it wrong legally. It will be interesting to see what arguments Uber makes.



Instyle said:


> Taximeter definition, a device fitted to a taxicab or other vehicle, for automatically computing and indicating the fare due. Sounds pretty similar to a phone with an app fitted to the car via a holder that automatically caculates and indicates the fare due.


I would be willing to bet that the fare calculation does not take place in-app. The phone measures time and distance, but the fare calculation only takes place on Uber's servers and is never displayed on the driver app. There is no taximeter in any Uber vehicle, unless it is also a genuine taxi.



Instyle said:


> What Uber are play at with this GST business is childish and I hope they get slammed in court and made a fool. There app already has the provisions in place to charge a sales tax and note the amounts seperately on the csv statement file as done in some US cities.


Uber could do a lot more than they currently do, but they have no incentive to. For instance, it would be trivially easy for them to calculate the GST on each fare and then send it to a separate bank account that we had setup for GST purposes on a weekly basis.

Obviously it suits their agenda if drivers don't have to worry about the GST. Less administration and lower tax expenses means drivers are more likely to keep on driving. I am amazed at how ignorant some drivers are regarding taxes (see here). What's the bet that guy is gonna stop driving now because of the tax surprise he set himself up for?


----------



## g00r

IF uber is a taxi (by definition) then, isn't the app, measuring or metering the travel usage?
Eg. Your house is fitted with a power meter which computes the kw/h usage, but the billing is done elsewhere.

Unless we see the source code for both the phone app and their back end system (hold your breath?) we can't say where the majority of the computation is done.
Your phone obviously knows how far you traveled and how long it took you, the calculation for this equation is pretty simple, and the app does or did show the fare due


----------



## UberDriverAU

g00r said:


> IF uber is a taxi (by definition) then, isn't the app, measuring or metering the travel usage?
> Eg. Your house is fitted with a power meter which computes the kw/h usage, but the billing is done elsewhere.
> 
> Unless we see the source code for both the phone app and their back end system (hold your breath?) we can't say where the majority of the computation is done.
> Your phone obviously knows how far you traveled and how long it took you, the calculation for this equation is pretty simple, and the app does or did show the fare due


Your phone is indeed recording GPS data, but I can assure you they don't calculate the fare in-app, for at least a couple of reasons:

(1) If they did, you could hack the app and have it send "the fare for this trip is $100" for every single trip. All the GPS data gets uploaded to their servers and the fare is calculated based on that data. The fact that there is a delay (occasionally lengthy) between finishing a trip and a payout value showing in your Trip History is confirmation that it's not calculated on your phone. I'm pretty sure I've even seen a message long the lines of "Your last trip is being processed ..." in-app after a trip has been finished.

(2) It mitigates against claims that a "taximeter" is installed. There are no $ values calculated or displayed in real-time in trip, and you can only find out what the fare was after a trip has been completed and they've calculated it. A "taximeter" calculates and displays fares in real-time within the device installed in the vehicle.


----------



## WollyDriver

Wouldn't this all go away if Uber created an Australian registered company, which collected GST from passengers, and then paid drivers based on GST registration status (or just require all drivers to have an ABN) the same as any other company does.
BTW, there is a small problem with all this. If all of your income (over 80% or whatever the value is) comes from a single "customer" (eg Uber) then you are an employee by definition. If we are employees, then we don't need to collect/remit GST, we are just being paid income.
So, lots of plus/minus solutions to this, and it will be interesting to see how it will end up with the courts.
Finally, I imagine the ATO will be asking the australian banks to track all payments received from uber, and then data matching for income tax returns, and/or ABN + GST registration status. I wonder whether this could be all much easier if Uber would register in Australia, and supply reports directly to Uber.


----------



## Skyring

MyRedUber said:


> I agree that UberDriverUA is the one clutching at straws. The ATO has ruled that UberX drivers are to collect GST from the first $, because we are providing a taxi service, even though we're not driving "taxis". I'm sure the court will agree with that interpretation.


My experience in observing court proceedings is that what people are sure of before the verdict, doesn't always agree with the actual verdict. ATO rulings are not law, and they can be and often are tested in court.

The ATO is always going to interpret tax legislation as broadly as they can get away with. They - rightly - want to collect tax, and minimise evasion and fraud.

And Uber wants to make the deal as sweet as possible for their drivers. It's effectively a 9% bonus, because few, if any drivers would be making a taxable income of $75K from Uber.

However, Uber isn't going to bust a gut over this, is my guess. It's not money going into their tax haven pockets.

I think we'll have to wait and see what the court says. Anything else is a guess.


----------



## UberDriverAU

It looks like the hearing has only lasted a couple of days, as there is nothing scheduled for tomorrow for the NSW Registry. It'll be interesting to see which way Justice Griffiths rules.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Skyring said:


> My experience in observing court proceedings is that what people are sure of before the verdict, doesn't always agree with the actual verdict. ATO rulings are not law, and they can be and often are tested in court.
> 
> The ATO is always going to interpret tax legislation as broadly as they can get away with. They - rightly - want to collect tax, and minimise evasion and fraud.
> 
> And Uber wants to make the deal as sweet as possible for their drivers. It's effectively a 9% bonus, because few, if any drivers would be making a taxable income of $75K from Uber.
> 
> However, Uber isn't going to bust a gut over this, is my guess. It's not money going into their tax haven pockets.
> 
> I think we'll have to wait and see what the court says. Anything else is a guess.


If I had to guess, my speculative guess is that Uber will win this case because Uber vehicles are not available for public hire, they are private hire vehicles. Taxis _are_ public hire vehicles, and the definition the ATO has used in formulating it's guidance is that Uber vehicles are available for public hire. Of course, I could be well off the mark, and only time will tell. Anyone else prepared to make a call? Go on, don't sit on the fence!


----------



## Skyring

UberDriverAU said:


> If I had to guess, my speculative guess is that Uber will win this case because Uber vehicles are not available for public hire, they are private hire vehicles. Taxis _are_ public hire vehicles, and the definition the ATO has used in formulating it's guidance is that Uber vehicles are available for public hire. Of course, I could be well off the mark, and only time will tell. Anyone else prepared to make a call? Go on, don't sit on the fence!


I concur. Looking at the media reports of the proceedings, we have Uber quoting the law and the ATO quoting dictionaries. Uber isn't providing a taxi service because we don't do rank and hail work. The ATO tries to present Uber drivers as driving around until somebody hails them using an app, but the reality is that the app is a booking system in exactly the same way that the taxi services have their own booking apps and phone rooms and text systems. Someone can't stick their hand up and grab an Uber; they have to provide their name and payment details.

As well as that, Uber drivers often turn the app on during their normal commute, on the off-chance that they might pick up a fare heading the same way. It's not a total dedication, like taxis and limousines are.


----------



## MyRedUber

UberDriverAU said:


> Uber vehicles are not available for public hire, they are private hire vehicles.


Private Hire drivers, except those limited to work such as weddings and funerals, are also required to collect GST from the first $.
An UberX driver is nothing more than a discount taxi service that doesn't do street hail and rank work.


----------



## MyRedUber

And the only question is does an UberX driver's total revenue exceed $75K. And that total revenue includes the total paid by passengers, including surge, tolls and any extra. It's not based on the amount that Uber transfer to your bank account.

Any UberX driver who drives anywhere near full time will exceed that $75K limit easily. Your total revenue is the total of your passengers' payments, not your income.


----------



## Skyring

MyRedUber said:


> Private Hire drivers, except those limited to work such as weddings and funerals, are also required to collect GST from the first $.
> An UberX driver is nothing more than a discount taxi service that doesn't do street hail and rank work.


I think it goes deeper than that. UberX drivers often - usually - do this work as a sideline. They aren't dedicated drivers working a twelve hour shift. Looks to me like the ATO made a grab for money, hoping that, like taxi drivers, Uber drivers would have nobody to stand up for them. Uber looks to be fighting this with some determination. I guess that it effectively raises the rate of pay by 9% without Uber having to shell out, and that's going to attract more drivers, resulting in more income for Uber.


----------



## Skyring

MyRedUber said:


> And the only question is does an UberX driver's total revenue exceed $75K. And that total revenue includes the total paid by passengers, including surge, tolls and any extra. It's not based on the amount that Uber transfer to your bank account.
> 
> Any UberX driver who drives anywhere near full time will exceed that $75K limit easily. Your total revenue is the total of your passengers' payments, not your income.


That's $1 442 gross weekly, assuming that a driver works for 52 weeks in the year. I guess Uber knows the percentage of drivers who gross $75 000 annually, but my guess is that it's not a huge number, and the effect of having to pay nearly $7 000 in GST (nearly five weeks gross) if the go one cent over would make for an effective disincentive for all but the most eager of beavers.


----------



## MyRedUber

It doesn't matter is you're full-time or part-time.
The reason that the ATO ask taxi, hire car and ride-share drivers to collect GST on all fares is so that there won't be two fare scales, one for drivers who's revenue is below $75K and other for those who's revenue is over $75k.


----------



## MyRedUber

There are plenty of full-time UberX drivers as there are plenty of part-time taxi and hire car drivers.


----------



## Skyring

MyRedUber said:


> It doesn't matter is you're full-time or part-time.
> The reason that the ATO ask taxi, hire car and ride-share drivers to collect GST on all fares is so that there won't be two fare scales, one for drivers who's revenue is below $75K and other for those who's revenue is over $75k.


But that doesn't apply to Uber. They set the amount the passenger pays, not the driver, not any government board. They change their fare rates as it suits them and they answer to nobody.


----------



## MyRedUber

We're just providing a discount taxi service, by amateur drivers using their family car, rather than a dedicated vehicle with signage. 
Why do you think you're so special that tax law and rulings don't apply to you?


----------



## Skyring

MyRedUber said:


> View attachment 50091
> 
> 
> We're just providing a discount taxi service, by amateur drivers using their family car, rather than a dedicated vehicle with signage.
> Why do you think you're so special that tax law and rulings don't apply to you?


1. We're not taxis. Not in any legal definition. 
2. Tax law applies to everyone. ATO rulings aren't law.
3. Small businesses with a turnover under $75K don't have to collect GST.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> It doesn't matter is you're full-time or part-time.
> The reason that the ATO ask taxi, hire car and ride-share drivers to collect GST on all fares is so that there won't be two fare scales, one for drivers who's revenue is below $75K and other for those who's revenue is over $75k.


Well no, the ATO asks those providing "taxi travel" to collect GST on all fares because that's what the legislation says. And for no other reason. The Parliament's intent for framing the legislation in this fashion is another matter.



MyRedUber said:


> View attachment 50091
> 
> 
> We're just providing a discount taxi service, by amateur drivers using their family car, rather than a dedicated vehicle with signage.
> Why do you think you're so special that tax law and rulings don't apply to you?


In the end, this case comes down to an interpretation of this text:


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/antsasta1999402/s195.1.html said:


> *"taxi travel " *means travel that involves transporting passengers, by taxi or limousine, for fares.


The way the legislation is framed, "taxi travel" must be by taxi or limousine, and must be for fares. It definitely leaves open the possibility that there can be transporting of passengers for fares that doesn't require a GST registration.

Have a look at the reasoning in the ATO's Interpretive Decision on wedding car operators:



http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=AID/AID200223/00001 said:


> *ATO Interpretative Decision*
> *ATO ID 2002/23*
> *Goods and Services Tax
> GST and registration of a wedding car operator*
> 
> FOI status: may be released
> Status of this decision: Decision Current
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CAUTION:* This is an edited and summarised record of a Tax Office decision. This record is not published as a form of advice. It is being made available for your inspection to meet FOI requirements, because it may be used by an officer in making another decision.
> 
> *This ATOID provides you with the following level of protection:*
> 
> If you reasonably apply this decision in good faith to your own circumstances (which are not materially different from those described in the decision), and the decision is later found to be incorrect you will not be liable to pay any penalty or interest. However, you will be required to pay any underpaid tax (or repay any over-claimed credit, grant or benefit), provided the time limits under the law allow it. If you do intend to apply this decision to your own circumstances, you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed. You may wish to obtain further advice from the Tax Office or from a professional adviser.
> 
> *Issue*
> 
> Is the entity, a wedding car operator, required to be registered for goods and services tax (GST) as per the compulsory registration requirements in subsection 144-5(1) of the _A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999_ (GST Act), when it supplies car hire and chauffeuring services for weddings in accordance with a restricted hire licence?
> 
> *Decision*
> 
> No, the entity is not required to be registered for GST as per the compulsory registration requirements in subsection 144-5(1) of the GST Act when it supplies car hire and chauffeuring services for weddings in accordance with a restricted hire licence.
> 
> *Facts*
> 
> The entity is a wedding car operator. The entity supplies car hire and chauffeuring services for weddings but only uses its vehicles for the transport of passengers on the day of a wedding. The entity charges a fee for this service.
> 
> The entity is accredited by the relevant transport authority as a private hire vehicle operator. The entity's vehicle is only authorised by the Department of Motor Transport to be used for the transport of wedding parties on the day of the wedding.
> 
> The entity's current GST turnover and projected GST turnover are below the registration turnover threshold in section 23-15 of the GST Act.
> 
> *Reasons for Decision*
> 
> Under subsection 144-5(1) of the GST Act, an entity is required to be registered for GST if, in carrying on its enterprise, it supplies taxi travel. Section 195-1 of the GST Act defines taxi travel to mean travel that involves transporting passengers, by taxi or limousine, for fares.
> 
> The terms 'taxi' and 'limousine' are not defined in the GST Act and therefore take on their ordinary meaning. The _Macquarie Dictionary_ 1997, defines 'taxi' as, 'a motor car for public hire, especially one fitted with a taximeter'. In accordance with the restricted hire licence, the entity's vehicle is only available for private hire. The vehicle is not available for public hire, and therefore, the wedding car is not a taxi.
> 
> _The Macquarie Dictionary 1997_ defines 'limousine' as any large luxurious car.' Some, if not all, of the vehicles that the entity uses would satisfy the ordinary definition of a limousine.
> 
> However, the definition of 'limousine' should be interpreted in accordance with the context in which the term 'limousine' is used. The term 'limousine' is included in the definition of taxi travel for the purposes of Division 144 of the GST Act. The explanatory section in Division 144 states that 'Taxi operators are required to be registered, regardless of turnover.' Subsection 182-10(2) of the GST Act provides that while explanatory sections are not operative provisions they may be considered in certain circumstances. Paragraph 182-10(2)(a) of the GST Act provides that explanatory provisions can be used to determine the purpose or object underlying the provision.
> 
> The purpose of Division 144 of the GST Act is to require all taxi operators to register for GST. The term 'limousine' is therefore used in the context of taxi operations. Taking this into account, it is considered that only limousine services that are provided by the taxi industry or are similar to and essentially in competition with the taxi industry are 'taxi travel'.
> 
> In this case, the entity is a private hire vehicle operator and only uses its vehicles in accordance with the restricted licences issued by the relevant transport authority for the transport of passengers on the day of their wedding. The entity is not providing a service that is similar to the services provided by the taxi industry nor is it providing a service that essentially competes with the taxi industry. As such, the entity is not providing travel in a 'limousine' for the purposes of the GST Act and therefore, the entity is not supplying taxi travel as defined in section 195-1 of the GST Act.
> 
> The entity is not required to be registered for GST as per the compulsory registration requirements in subsection 144-5(1) of the GST Act when it only supplies car hire and chauffeuring services for weddings in accordance with a restricted hire licence.
> 
> _[Note: When an entity's current or projected GST turnover from its enterprise meets the registration turnover threshold in section 23-15 of the GST Act it will be required to register for GST under section 23-5 of the GST Act.]_
> 
> *Date of decision:* 10 September 2001


Specifically:



> The terms 'taxi' and 'limousine' are not defined in the GST Act and therefore take on their ordinary meaning. The _Macquarie Dictionary_ 1997, defines 'taxi' as, 'a motor car for public hire, especially one fitted with a taximeter'. In accordance with the restricted hire licence, the entity's vehicle is only available for private hire. The vehicle is not available for public hire, and therefore, the wedding car is not a taxi.
> 
> _The Macquarie Dictionary 1997_ defines 'limousine' as any large luxurious car.' Some, if not all, of the vehicles that the entity uses would satisfy the ordinary definition of a limousine.


Using the ATO's own reasoning, if a car is not available for public hire, then it is not a "taxi" for the purposes of the GST Act. The only other way a car can be caught under the provisions of the Act is if it is a "limousine", and most UberX vehicles are not "large luxurious" cars. It stands to reason that there should not be a requirement to register for GST if you are using a car that is only available for private hire and is not a limousine.


----------



## MyRedUber

UberX vehicle are available for public hire and are providing a taxi or hire car service. You carry members of the public in return for payment.
The court or ATO will just make another class of vehicle to include "point-to-point" services.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> UberX vehicle are available for public hire and are providing a taxi or hire car service. You carry members of the public in return for payment.
> The court or ATO will just make another class of vehicle to include "point-to-point" services.


No they're not available for public hire. What's the difference between public hire and private hire? Private hire must be booked first, and public hire doesn't need to be. The laws in the ACT, NSW, and now WA prohibit Uber operators from being available for public hire. UberX vehicles carry members of the public just as Wedding car operators carry members of the public, yet the ATO says wedding cars are not available for public hire and therefore aren't taxis. The ATO is not applying it's own interpretation of "taxi" consistently.


----------



## MyRedUber

UberDriverAU said:


> The ATO is not applying it's own interpretation of "taxi" consistently.


I've spoken to the Assistant Commissioner. Your understanding is incorrect.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> I've spoken to the Assistant Commissioner. Your understanding is incorrect.


In your opinion, and in his opinion. The ATO has been taken to court many times in the past and lost. The ATO's view of what the law is, is therefore not infallible. Let's simply see how this case plays out, shall we?


----------



## UberDriverAU

Grand said:


> I drive for Uber and GoCar in Sydney.
> GoCar claim they are Australia and pay the GST on the commission.
> Here is the problem, the ATO claim GST is payable on the FULL fare. My GoCar annual statement only listed the FULL fare total (G1-Total Sales).
> It would seem to me that GoCar will pay GST on their commission *AND* I will pay GST on the FULL fare. So ATO gets two lots of GST.
> Do I have this wrong?


You do have it wrong, because if GoCar is paying GST on their commission, then you can claim a GST credit for it. Their GST debit and your GST credit cancel out.


----------



## UberDriverAU

UberDriverAU said:


> You do have it wrong, because if GoCar is paying GST on their commission, then you can claim a GST credit for it. Their GST debit and your GST credit cancel out.


As a general statement, the amount of GST that a business remits to the ATO is 1/11th of the value that they add. If you sell an item for $1,100 and it cost you $550 for all of the parts, you'd remit GST of (1,100 - 550) / 11 = $50 to the ATO. Your suppliers would remit the $50 of GST on the $550 worth of parts. In an accounting sense, the GST burden falls upon consumers that aren't businesses, because they aren't able to claim GST credits.


----------



## MyRedUber

The fundamental design of the GST was that it should be paid by the final retail customer.
That's the only transaction where GST credits are not available.


----------



## pete n

I think you are on the right track here. A service is being provided, and Uber is the one doing the transaction with the customer, we are acting as contractors. Uber earns well over the $75,000 threshold and they are charging GST. So they should pay the GST that is dues from each transaction. Then if a driver is GST registered they charge GST in their invoice and Uber gets the credit. This is how it is working in the music industry. I work for companies who charge GST but I don't charge GST, but other musicians who work for them do charge it. The service is provided, the client pays the GST, and it gets paid by those who are registered for GST. Currently Uber seem to be suggesting we pay all the GST, which is not equitable. They should pay their share of tax and if a driver is GST registered and then invoices for GST, they get the credit. There would be no price difference to the consumer. I can't understand how an entire tax office can't use obvious logic - or can overseas based companies somehow get away with not paying GST on money earned in Australia? If that's the case, as Uber suggest new legislation should be made to deal with this new situation.


----------



## pete n

MyRedUber said:


> The fundamental design of the GST was that it should be paid by the final retail customer.
> That's the only transaction where GST credits are not available.


Except for those customers which are GST exempt - like schools....


----------



## pete n

MyRedUber said:


> That is the essence of what the court will need to decide, whether the Act is specific to taxis, yellow cars with signage and lights on the roof, or more broadly applied to on-demand passenger carrying services. That would include, as it does now, all taxis and all hire cars who do not limit themselves to prebooked work such as weddings.
> 
> FWIW, right now, not all Hire Cars are considered limousines, but they are still required to collect GST from the first $. So that Act has already been interpreted quite broadly, more broadly than the specific words "taxi" and "limousine".
> 
> I'm sure that the court will take the broader view of all vehicles and their drivers providing on-demand passenger carrying services. The terms "taxi" and "limousine" in the Act were intended to refer to the full range of vehicles from the lower class taxi to the five star limousine, not to limit the Act to those two specific types of vehicle.
> 
> Sorry, that's not going to happen, ever. If the court decides in favour of the $75K minimum, there will be two fare scales, and lots of angry customers, and cancelled rides. There's no way that any driver or Uber is going to be allowed to keep even one dollar of tax collected from passengers.
> 
> Any situation other than the ATO's current interpretation and application of the Act is unworkable.


There is a situation that happens now that is workable. It happens all the time. A company/entity charges GST then contractors who are registered charge GST, those that aren't don't charge. The company/entity gets their GST credit from the GST charged by the contractor. It's just a matter of who is sending the GST to the ATO, as opposed to what Uber seem to be suggesting at the moment, that they charge GST and pass on the payment of all that money to Drivers, which is them avoiding the GST payment on their share of the fare and dumping the whole tax liability on the driver, unless the courts rule that the driver can get a tax credit from the fee paid to Uber. But being a multinational company based overseas, they will do whatever they can to avoid paying tax. No wonder they don't make much mention of the need to register for GST when you sign up....they didn't say "come along watch this video and by the way you don't mind us hoisting our GST tax obligations onto you, of you go and drive".....


----------



## pete n

MyRedUber said:


> As far as I understand the court action, the basis of Uber's claim is that the Act specifically refers to "taxi", "limousine", and similar words. Uber's claim is that "ridesharing" is not a "taxi" or "limousine" service. We all know that's BS; UberX drivers provide exactly the same service as on-demand taxi and hire car drivers.
> 
> If the court decides in the strict interpretation of those words, maybe Uber will win. But I expect it far more likely that the court will decide on a wider interpretation of these words to describe the on-demand passenger service provided, not the sign on the roof of the car.
> 
> Either way, that will not exclude UberX drivers from responsibility for collecting GST on behalf of the ATO. It would just mean that only those drivers whose total annual revenue is over $75K would be required to collect GST for the ATO.
> 
> BUT, that would then leave a very big problem for Uber, its drivers and our passengers. There would need to be two fare scales, one including GST charged by those drivers taking over $75K and a lower fare scale for those drivers taking less than $75K. We can not all charge the same fares with some drivers keeping more and some drivers having to send some to the ATO. In my discussions with ATO officers, that's precisely the reason that the ATO ruled that all taxi and on-demand hire car drivers should collect GST from the first $, not subject to the $75K minimum.
> 
> And, if that were to happen, part-time taxi and hire car drivers would have a very good case to be treated the same as part-time UberX drivers.
> 
> It won't happen.
> 
> And to those people referring to the time taken for this case through the court, everything so far have been procedural matters. The court is yet to hear any substantive argument.


There doesn't need to be a two fare scale - it's simple. Uber charges GST and pays it. Then Drivers who are GST registered charge Uber GST on their invoice. Uber then claims a GST credit. They way if a driver who is not registered for GST doesn't have pay the GST, as it has already been paid. The fares stay the same, inclusive of GST. One has to wonder what stupid loophole there is in the Tax legislation, that overseas based companies use, for this not to happen. For example an $11 fare - a non GST registered driver on 80% gets $8, Uber gets $2 and pays the ATO $1. For a GST registered Driver Uber pays the $1 GST but is charged $8.80 by the driver. They then get the 80cents back, having paid 20 cents in GST. The GST registered driver then pays the 80 cents. This all adds up to the ATO getting $1 from an $11 fare either way. The way the ATO and Uber are saying at the moment, according to the letter the ATO sent me, is that I, as a non-GST registered driver should pay Uber's share, which is not how the GST was designed. They made the Taxi rules because a very of different situation in different time to ensure an even playing field. The ATO may have come up with a ruling last year but it still is not right for Uber to A) not pay appropriate tax and B) shift that tax obligation over to drivers.


----------



## MyRedUber

Too many armchair lawyers here. I'll wait patiently for the court's decision, and then abide by that decision.


----------



## Nawdy

MyRedUber said:


> Too many armchair lawyers here. I'll wait patiently for the court's decision, and then abide by that decision.


I agree ...

I also think tax systems are complicated by design as it is advantageous for tax collectors to confuse situations and therefore gain more revenue due to this confusion.

Then would it be right for Uber to have to pay Tax on income in both countries ie Australia and Netherlands on there profits ... Got to love Taxes.

There are allot more issues at stake here then just the drivers paying GST. Investors and large International Companies bring allot to Australia there has to be a better solution.


----------



## UXDriver

Any outcome on this?


----------



## UberDriverAU

UXDriver said:


> Any outcome on this?


Judgment was reserved. They try to deliver reserved judgments within 3 months of the hearing date, so we can expect to see it by the 21st of October.


----------



## JaySonic

Question about this GST law. If I'm reserving 10% from the first dollar,therefore registered for GST, then do I also need to pay GST from the first dollar on some other small income stream I have (under $10kp/a) ? That would totally suck, and unfair.


----------



## UberDriverAU

JaySonic said:


> Question about this GST law. If I'm reserving 10% from the first dollar,therefore registered for GST, then do I also need to pay GST from the first dollar on some other small income stream I have (under $10kp/a) ? That would totally suck, and unfair.


You don't need to reserve 10%, your GST liability can't be more than 9.09% of what the customer pays. The way the GST laws are framed, you will indeed have to pay GST from the first dollar on other business income streams through the same ABN. It isn't fair, I agree.


----------



## JaySonic

Thanks, thats really discriminatory of the ATO


----------



## pajala

Has anyone heard anything about this decision may occur?


----------



## UberDriverAU

pajala said:


> Has anyone heard anything about this decision may occur?


A decision hasn't been delivered yet, but should be within the next three weeks.


----------



## fields

UberDriverAU said:


> A decision hasn't been delivered yet, but should be within the next three weeks.


If the decision is in our favour, will we have our GST payments refunded?


----------



## UberXploited

fields said:


> If the decision is in our favour, will we have our GST payments refunded?


Or rather our tax debts waived for those of us who can't afford an accountant.


----------



## MyRedUber

fields said:


> If the decision is in our favour, will we have our GST payments refunded?


You did not pay GST. Your passenger paid GST. You only collected it and passed it on to the ATO.
If anyone is to get a refund of GST, it will be the passengers.


----------



## UberXploited

MyRedUber said:


> You did not pay GST. Your passenger paid GST. You only collected it and passed it on to the ATO.
> If anyone is to get a refund of GST, it will be the passengers.


Interesting perspective.


----------



## UberXploited

MyRedUber said:


> You did not pay GST. Your passenger paid GST. You only collected it and passed it on to the ATO.
> If anyone is to get a refund of GST, it will be the passengers.


But I think you are wrong about this one.
Uber never said that the fare included GST in fact they argue that it doesn't and should not. IF the ATO says that GST does NOT apply then the driver keeps the money. Also, Uber never increased the fares by 10% when then ATO said that we must.


----------



## Korz13

I'm so confused! I have been drive uber at sydney for 3 month. Any one can give me advise to me, did i have to registered my abn for gst now or wait until what the court final decision for gst?


----------



## MyRedUber

UberXploited said:


> But I think you are wrong about this one.


No. GST, regardless of taxi, supermarket, restaurant, newsagent, hardware store, petrol station, is and always has been a tax on the final retail customer. Always has been, always will be.



Korz13 said:


> Any one can give me advise to me


Get an ABN and register for GST. It costs nothing. And every drive you do, you've already collected GST from your customer. You have to pass that on to the ATO. It is illegal for you to keep that GST that your customer has paid.


----------



## MyRedUber

There's essentially no difference, for GST purposes, between taxi, hire car and Uber drivers. But, even if in the unlikely event that Uber manage to convince the court to treat Uber and Uber drivers differently in future, you have already collected GST from your customer. Your customer is the one who was taxed, not you. There will be no refund to the drivers.


----------



## Korz13

MyRedUber said:


> No. GST, regardless of taxi, supermarket, restaurant, newsagent, hardware store, petrol station, is and always has been a tax on the final retail customer. Always has been, always will be.
> 
> Get an ABN and register for GST. It costs nothing. And every drive you do, you've already collected GST from your customer. You have to pass that on to the ATO. It is illegal for you to keep that GST that your customer has paid.


So how i pass the gst to ato and how is work for this. And i heard also i should give the bas every 3 month. And did i have to pass gst to ato every 3 month


----------



## fields

MyRedUber said:


> You did not pay GST. Your passenger paid GST. You only collected it and passed it on to the ATO.
> If anyone is to get a refund of GST, it will be the passengers.


Sorry but you are completely wrong.

GST is payable for those of us who earn upwards of $75,000. Those who do/did not earn that amount should expect a refund from the ATO. No refund to the passengers!


----------



## UberXploited

MyRedUber said:


> No. GST, regardless of taxi, supermarket, restaurant, newsagent, hardware store, petrol station, is and always has been a tax on the final retail customer. Always has been, always will be.


If the ATO's decision is that GST does not apply then it will be assumed that the fares never included GST in the first place. The riders agreed to a set rate per km and per minute and that's all that matters. They never received an invoice with a tax component. If they did then maybe riders would have a case for a refund.

In any case the ATO would unlikely retro-apply a GST refund to passengers. The administration costs of doing that may be more than that actual refunds.


----------



## Korz13

I feel uber is unfair when they taking uber fee 20% from gross sales, the have take uber fee 20% after minus 10% GST.
What do you think?


----------



## UberXploited

Korz13 said:


> I feel uber is unfair when they taking uber fee 20% from gross sales, the have take uber fee 20% after minus 10% GST.
> What do you think?


Uber take 28% from me but that's because I drive UberSelect in Brisbane. Yes even 20% is exorbitant.


----------



## UberDriverAU

fields said:


> If the decision is in our favour, will we have our GST payments refunded?


The ATO cannot keep the money unless you owe them a debt. So any debts will be settled, and the excess will be refunded.


----------



## MyRedUber

fields said:


> GST is payable for those of us who earn upwards of $75,000.


Not true. Putting aside taxis, hire cars and rideshare for a moment, businesses whose total yearly revenue is less than $75K are not required to collect GST from their customers, while businesses whose revenue is over $75K are required to collect GST from their customers.

As for rideshare and similar services, I have spoken to the Assistant Commissioner and the reason they removed this $75K threshold from taxis and similar services was to avoid two fare scales and confusion for passengers.

The fact remains that the GST is paid by the final retail customer, not the retailer. The retailer is just collecting the GST on behalf of the ATO.


----------



## MyRedUber

UberXploited said:


> then it will be assumed that the fares never included GST in the first place


Not true. Legally the fare paid by the customer included GST. It would be illegal for the driver to retain that GST or have the GST paid back to them.

I wish people here would get rid of this idea that they paid GST.
GST is a tax on the final retail customer.


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> Not true. Legally the fare paid by the customer included GST. It would be illegal for the driver to retain that GST or have the GST paid back to them.
> 
> I wish people here would get rid of this idea that they paid GST.
> GST is a tax on the final retail customer.


It is a fact that suppliers pay the GST. That is exactly who the law says must pay, and who the ATO chases if the GST is not paid.

In a letter from the ATO to some drivers regarding their tax obligations, there was a question regarding this very court case and it says:


ATO Letter said:


> If a court decides our interpretation of the law is incorrect, we can refund tax paid or make corrections as required.


You have an interesting opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. It's neither grounded in fact or law. People shouldn't be distracted from their rights or obligations by your views.


----------



## Skyring

It will be interesting to see the decision, regardless of which way it goes. The ATO was quoting from dictionaries in court, claiming that Ubers were perceived as taxis. Uber was arguing the law, pointing out all the ways in which Ubers were not legally defined as a taxi.

For example, we cannot use taxi ranks or accept street hails. That would appear to put us more in the limousine/hire car category than taxi.


----------



## MyRedUber

Skyring said:


> That would appear to put us more in the limousine/hire car category than taxi.


All hire drivers/companies are required to collect GST from their customers and pass it on to the ATO. The only exception are those that only do pre-booked work such as funerals, weddings, etc...

Taxis, hire cars, rideshare, are all doing essentially the same work, proving essentially the same service, subject to all the same GST obligations.


----------



## MyRedUber

https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/ITX/downloads/how_gst_works.pdf


----------



## UberXploited

MyRedUber said:


> Not true. Legally the fare paid by the customer included GST. It would be illegal for the driver to retain that GST or have the GST paid back to them.
> 
> I wish people here would get rid of this idea that they paid GST.
> GST is a tax on the final retail customer.


I wish you were right so I could ignore the letters from the ATO telling me I owe several thousand dollars in GST.


----------



## Skyring

MyRedUber said:


> All hire drivers/companies are required to collect GST from their customers and pass it on to the ATO. The only exception are those that only do pre-booked work such as funerals, weddings, etc...
> 
> Taxis, hire cars, rideshare, are all doing essentially the same work, proving essentially the same service, subject to all the same GST obligations.


That's the ATO's case, which they supported with dictionary quotes. The Macquarie Dictionary doesn't make Ubers into taxis.

This isn't about GST _per se_. This is about the $75 000 threshold.


----------



## MyRedUber

Skyring said:


> This isn't about GST _per se_. This is about the $75 000 threshold.


Quite true.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

Some legislative events in 1992 may be of interest if the legal challenge to the imposition of GST were to succeed.

Back then, the High Court in the _Mutual Pools case _held that imposing the (former) sales tax on in-ground swimming pools was unconstitutional because sales tax was being improperly imposed for what was legally and factually a land tax.

The Constitution does not permit different subjects of taxation to be imposed by the one imposition Act. (Parliament later remedied this legislative defect and successfully imposed sales tax on in-ground swimming pools.)

Parliament then made it difficult for the swimming pool people to obtain a refund of the sales tax unconstitutionally imposed. It enacted legislation that permitted a refund of tax only if it could be demonstrated that a refund of sales tax had been made to to the final consumer.

Here is a link to the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C00767.

The practical effect of the legislation was that the Government ended up keeping much of the collected tax that would otherwise have needed to be refunded.

It's just possible that the Government could seek to take a similar approach if we were to be successful. This assumes of course that they could get legislation of this kind through the Senate.

I think it's unlikely the Government would seek to do this but it cannot be ruled out.


----------



## MyRedUber

Jack Malarkey said:


> Some legislative events in 1992 may be of interest if the legal challenge to the imposition of GST were to succeed.


I don't agree that this is relevant.

As I see it there are two things to be decided:
first, that rideshare drivers are providing essentially the same service as taxis and hire cars, and
second, that the $75K threshold applied to all other businesses has been reduced to $0 for taxis, hire cars and rideshare.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

MyRedUber said:


> I don't agree that this is relevant.
> 
> As I see it there are two things to be decided:
> first, that rideshare drivers are providing essentially the same service as taxis and hire cars, and
> second, that the $75K threshold applied to all other businesses has been reduced to $0 for taxis, hire cars and rideshare.


I agree it's not relevant for the court case itself.

The purpose of the comment is to alert colleagues to a POSSIBLE legislative response should the challenge to imposition of GST be successful.


----------



## Skyring

Jack Malarkey said:


> I agree it's not relevant for the court case itself.
> 
> The purpose of the comment is to alert colleagues to a POSSIBLE legislative response should the challenge to imposition of GST be successful.


So the Commonwealth has form on this: they'd keep the money, because getting it back to the passengers who originally paid it would be very difficult, and the drivers, who only acted as middlemen, have no legitimate claim.

On the repayment point, although it's of no use to we drivers, Uber could handle identifying the transactions through their records. But I won't hold my breath waiting for the ATO and Uber to play ball.


----------



## pajala

UberDriverAU said:


> A decision hasn't been delivered yet, but should be within the next three weeks.


Thanks have no idea why this is taking so long its a pretty simple decision to be honest


----------



## Jack Malarkey

Skyring said:


> So the Commonwealth has form on this: they'd keep the money, because getting it back to the passengers who originally paid it would be very difficult, and the drivers, who only acted as middlemen, have no legitimate claim.
> 
> On the repayment point, although it's of no use to we drivers, Uber could handle identifying the transactions through their records. But I won't hold my breath waiting for the ATO and Uber to play ball.


Skyring, you have understood the point I'm trying to make perfectly. I completely agree with your analysis.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Jack Malarkey said:


> Skyring, you have understood the point I'm trying to make perfectly. I completely agree with your analysis.


The big differences are:
(1) thousands of small dollar transactions compared with far fewer bigger dollar transactions.
(2) The GST Act explicitly says suppliers are liable for and must pay GST:


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


> *Liability for GST on taxable supplies*
> You must pay the GST payable on any * taxable supply that you make.


In my view, it would be very hard to argue that someone other than who was legally liable and made the tax payment should be the recipient of any refunds.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

UberDriverAU said:


> The big differences are:
> (1) thousands of small dollar transactions compared with far fewer bigger dollar transactions.
> (2) The GST Act explicitly says suppliers are liable for and must pay GST:
> 
> In my view, it would be very hard to argue that someone other than who was legally liable and made the tax payment should be the recipient of any refunds.


Agreed.


----------



## MyRedUber

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegIssBus/2002/1.pdf
--- quote ---
It is a consumption tax as it applies generally to expenditure (amounts spent) rather than income (amounts earned or received). 
Ultimately, it is a tax that is finally borne by consumers, rather than producers or suppliers.

GST is imposed when a 'taxable supply' is made. The rate of GST is 10%. This is included in the price paid to a supplier by a customer.

The overall effect of the GST system is that the ultimate burden of the GST falls on end-users, or private consumers.
Thus businesses that form part of the chain of supply act as collectors of the tax, but by virtue of the input tax credit mechanism they do not ultimately bear the burden of it.

... through the input tax credit mechanism, businesses did not bear the GST, which was ultimately borne by the final customer and included in part of the price paid.
--- end quote ---


----------



## UberDriverAU

MyRedUber said:


> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegIssBus/2002/1.pdf
> --- quote ---
> It is a consumption tax as it applies generally to expenditure (amounts spent) rather than income (amounts earned or received).
> Ultimately, it is a tax that is finally borne by consumers, rather than producers or suppliers.
> 
> GST is imposed when a 'taxable supply' is made. The rate of GST is 10%. This is included in the price paid to a supplier by a customer.
> 
> The overall effect of the GST system is that the ultimate burden of the GST falls on end-users, or private consumers.
> Thus businesses that form part of the chain of supply act as collectors of the tax, but by virtue of the input tax credit mechanism they do not ultimately bear the burden of it.
> 
> ... through the input tax credit mechanism, businesses did not bear the GST, which was ultimately borne by the final customer and included in part of the price paid.
> --- end quote ---


It would be laughable if the ATO pointed to flyers and journals as the reason why drivers shouldn't be refunded. The legislation clearly states who is liable and who pays. It's also not true that the tax burden of the GST falls completely upon consumers.

Why don't you find where in the GST legislation it says consumers pay GST? I bet you can't. Here's a link:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/antsasta1999402/


----------



## Daniel_D

The effect for us driver partners...hahaha...slaves, is do we get a refund from their service fee that Uber collects, as i think they made have contravened their own contract to base their service fee on the GST inclusive amount.


----------



## Drivingthecattlehome

UberDriverAU said:


> It doesn't cost them anything extra. They're doing it to see what drivers are willing to accept. The fares are 50% more than UberX, but drivers only get 33% more while Uber gets 110% more compared with UberX. In short, it's simply not worth doing because a vehicle suitable for UberXL (6 seater) costs a lot more to operate than one suitable for UberX, plus they expect you to accept UberX trips at UberX prices, even though your running costs are much higher. Anyone who's prepared to do it must be crazy I think.


I think for the pax, something like I saw in Thailand would be perfect. A Long utility vehicle which is covered with sitting Benchs on both sides. Easily fit 12 people + 1 in front. A Diesel would do the job. Ideal for pax after midnight. They can spew and carry on. End of shift simply hose down.


----------



## Drivingthecattlehome

Foolsber Tractor. A Tractor with a very large trailer. Carry about 30 people at once. Covered canopy and benches to sit on. This would be great for after midnight pax. Diesel pulling power around inner city. Spew, party,music, Brown eyes no problem with driver locked in Tractor cabin. End of shift just hose down trailer tray.


----------



## Uberx zoom

UberXploited said:


> But I think you are wrong about this one.
> Uber never said that the fare included GST in fact they argue that it doesn't and should not. IF the ATO says that GST does NOT apply then the driver keeps the money. Also, Uber never increased the fares by 10% when then ATO said that we must.


Wrong. Uber clearly mentions that fares include GST. I will supply a link to their faq pages later on.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

Uber increased fares for GST. See
http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...t/news-story/3511483b53368f8967c7b05559db16da.


----------



## Uberx zoom

Check Uber's disclaimer over this page notifying passengers that all prices include 10% GST while they refuse to pay any GST in Australia.
https://www.uber.com/en-AU/cities/sydney/

Quote:
"...Uber is not a transportation provider. No need to tip. Applicable tolls and surcharges may be added to your fare. At times of intense demand, our rates change over time to keep vehicles available. *All fares are inclusive of 10% G.S.T* when applicable. Prices are shown in Australian dollars (AUD)...."


----------



## prosmart

Uberx zoom said:


> Check Uber's disclaimer over this page notifying passengers that all prices include 10% GST while they refuse to pay any GST in Australia.
> https://www.uber.com/en-AU/cities/sydney/
> 
> Quote:
> "...Uber is not a transportation provider. No need to tip. Applicable tolls and surcharges may be added to your fare. At times of intense demand, our rates change over time to keep vehicles available. *All fares are inclusive of 10% G.S.T* when applicable. Prices are shown in Australian dollars (AUD)...."
> 
> View attachment 73930


Uber paying or not paying GST is irrelevant. Their statement is true.

N/


----------



## Uberx zoom

prosmart said:


> Uber paying or not paying GST is irrelevant. Their statement is true.
> 
> N/


Nope, this is a misleading statement actually. On one hand they are saying that they are collecting GST but then they dont pass it to the ATO. If you would have done the same you would been treated as a criminal in a court of law. Keeping money which is not yours to begin with.


----------



## MyRedUber

Because the drivers are independent contractors and Uber is just a facilitator, the drivers are responsible for collecting GST and passing it on to the ATO. The passenger is a customer to the driver, not to Uber. The only payment where Uber might be responsible to collect and remit GST is on the drivers' payment to Uber. But as Uber is not an Australian company, they don't.

My understanding of the action that Uber have brought is on their claim that the drivers' responsibility for collecting GST should start at $75K yearly revenue, not $1 as applies to all taxis and almost all hire cars. Personally, I can't see how UberX drivers are essentially any different from those taxi and hire car drivers.


----------



## prosmart

Uberx zoom said:


> Nope, this is a misleading statement actually. On one hand they are saying that they are collecting GST but then they dont pass it to the ATO. If you would have done the same you would been treated as a criminal in a court of law. Keeping money which is not yours to begin with.


Read it again
*All fares are inclusive of 10% G.S.T* *when applicable*.
That is a factual statement. That is the only thing they are saying. If you interpret it differently then that is your doing.
N/


----------



## Uberx zoom

prosmart said:


> Read it again
> *All fares are inclusive of 10% G.S.T* *when applicable*.
> That is a factual statement. That is the only thing they are saying. If you interpret it differently then that is your doing.
> N/


Perhaps it is you who dosnt understand the law. "Fare" means the full fare to the customer. Including Uber's commissions. While Uber charge GST ("price is inclusive of GST" remember) they do not pass that GST to the ATO. And yes, they do word it in a very creative manner. Dosn't make it right though.

If they are really just "the facilators" then they should have worded the disclaimer in away which clearly indicate that only part of the fare is inclusive of GST. But guess what, they dont.


----------



## observer

MyRedUber said:


> Because the drivers are independent contractors and Uber is just a facilitator, the drivers are responsible for collecting GST and passing it on to the ATO. The passenger is a customer to the driver, not to Uber. The only payment where Uber might be responsible to collect and remit GST is on the drivers' payment to Uber. But as Uber is not an Australian company, they don't.
> 
> My understanding of the action that Uber have brought is on their claim that the drivers' responsibility for collecting GST should start at $75K yearly revenue, not $1 as applies to all taxis and almost all hire cars. Personally, I can't see how UberX drivers are essentially any different from those taxi and hire car drivers.


Taking your theory one step further, if the responsibility of paying GST is on the "Independent Contractor" driver, why did Uber file a lawsuit? Since Uber claims it's on the drivers, Uber has no losses and therefore no claim or right to sue on behalf of drivers. If drivers were truly independent contractors they would be the ones to file a lawsuit not Uber.


----------



## Uberx zoom

MyRedUber said:


> But as Uber is not an Australian company, They dont.


The offices they have all over the country must be a figment of everyone's imagination.


----------



## MyRedUber

Uberx zoom said:


> then they should have worded the disclaimer in away which clearly indicate that only part of the fare is inclusive of GST. But guess what, they dont.


I wish people could get this through their heads. GST is charged on the full amount of the final retail transaction, the full amount paid by the final retail customer, not on part of that full amount.



Uberx zoom said:


> "Fare" means the full fare to the customer. Including Uber's commissions.


The fare does not include Uber's commission.
The fare includes only the fare plus surge and any tolls. That full fare payment goes to the independent contractor, the driver. Uber acts as a payment facilitator, not unlike PayPal. They are able to receive credit card payments, drivers are not. From that full fare payment, the driver pays Uber their commission. To prevent fraud, the payment facilitator withholds the commission and passes it on to the non-Australian Uber. Not unlike Withholding Tax if you employ a tradesperson.



Uberx zoom said:


> The offices they have all over the country must be a figment of everyone's imagination.


The Uber that passengers and drivers deal with is not in Australia. Only the "support" and administration services are in Australia. Different company. Australian law applies only to Uber Australia, not to Uber BV.



observer said:


> why did Uber file a lawsuit?


Because it increases fares by 10%.


----------



## Uberx zoom

MyRedUber said:


> I wish people could get this through their heads. GST is charged on the full amount of the final retail transaction, the full amount paid by the final retail customer, not on part of that full amount.
> 
> The fare does not include Uber's commission.
> The fare includes only the fare plus surge and any tolls. That full fare payment goes to the independent contractor, the driver. Uber acts as a payment facilitator, not unlike PayPal. They are able to receive credit card payments, drivers are not. From that full fare payment, the driver pays Uber their commission. To prevent fraud, the payment facilitator withholds the commission and passes it on to the non-Australian Uber. Not unlike Withholding Tax if you employ a tradesperson.
> 
> The Uber that passengers and drivers deal with is not in Australia. Only the "support" and administration services are in Australia. Different company. Australian law applies only to Uber Australia, not to Uber BV.
> 
> Because it increases fares by 10%.


Wrong (again). Customer is billed and charged by uber over the *full fare*. GST is applicable to the full amount charged to the customer. The full amount INCLUDS uber's commision. Uber does not pass the GST they supposedly collect on thier commisions to the ATO. So their GST disclaimer wording is misleading just like the rest of thier disclaimers where they claim not to be a transportation company. Yea right...


----------



## prosmart

Uberx zoom said:


> Wrong.


Brilliant rebuttal!

N/


----------



## MyRedUber

Uberx zoom said:


> Wrong (again).


I won't waste space repeating your full rebuttal, but let me just say that you clearly do not understand. Really is better to stay out of discussions where your lack of knowledge of the subject stands out so glaringly.


----------



## Uberx zoom

MyRedUber said:


> I won't waste space repeating your full rebuttal, but let me just say that you clearly do not understand. Really is better to stay out of discussions where your lack of knowledge of the subject stands out so glaringly.


Sure!...i've been a business owner for more than 20 years now and its me who dont understand about GST...

Simple really, when one claims to be collecting GST on the full amount of a transaction but then dont pass part of it to the ATO that person/company are committing a crime. Full stop.

I will not waste more of my time trying to explain that to you as you clearly seem captivated by Uber's misleading spin. So i'll leave it at that.

P.S.
Uberpool (comming soon to Victoria) and the GST spin circus they are about to launch is yet another perfect example of how much wrong you are.


----------



## Skyring

observer said:


> Taking your theory one step further, if the responsibility of paying GST is on the "Independent Contractor" driver, why did Uber file a lawsuit? Since Uber claims it's on the drivers, Uber has no losses and therefore no claim or right to sue on behalf of drivers. If drivers were truly independent contractors they would be the ones to file a lawsuit not Uber.


Uber is in court because they would rather their drivers kept the GST. That would be a continuing 9% incentive payment for most, if not all.


----------



## observer

Skyring said:


> Uber is in court because they would rather their drivers kept the GST. That would be a continuing 9% incentive payment for most, if not all.


Somehow I don't believe that, Uber doesn't care about the drivers keeping the 9%, Uber wants that 9% for itself or to keep fares lower for pax.


----------



## whyza

Uberx zoom said:


> Check Uber's disclaimer over this page notifying passengers that all prices include 10% GST while they refuse to pay any GST in Australia.
> https://www.uber.com/en-AU/cities/sydney/
> 
> Quote:
> "...Uber is not a transportation provider. No need to tip. Applicable tolls and surcharges may be added to your fare. At times of intense demand, our rates change over time to keep vehicles available. *All fares are inclusive of 10% G.S.T* when applicable. Prices are shown in Australian dollars (AUD)...."
> 
> View attachment 73930


 ..we have been paying our GST wrong way....foober admitted collecting GST !!!!!!!!!!!WOW.......


----------



## whyza

Uberx zoom said:


> Perhaps it is you who dosnt understand the law. "Fare" means the full fare to the customer. Including Uber's commissions. While Uber charge GST ("price is inclusive of GST" remember) they do not pass that GST to the ATO. And yes, they do word it in a very creative manner. Dosn't make it right though.
> 
> If they are really just "the facilators" then they should have worded the disclaimer in away which clearly indicate that only part of the fare is inclusive of GST. But guess what, they dont.


...I'm going to write to ATO and my local MP and ask to clear it to me...


----------



## MyRedUber

Uberx zoom said:


> Sure!...i've been a business owner for more than 20 years now and it is me who dont understand about GST...


Doing something for 20 years does not mean that you understand it. In particular, it does not mean that you understand how it applies in a different situation. FWIW, I've been doing this for 50 years, so by your measure I understand it 250% better than you.


----------



## Uberx zoom

MyRedUber said:


> Doing something for 20 years does not mean that you understand it. In particular, it does not mean that you understand how it applies in a different situation. FWIW, I've been doing this for 50 years, so by your measure I understand it 250% better than you.


Well obviously you dont.


----------



## Uberx zoom

NOVEMBER 4 2016
*Uber is 'misleading', ATO confirms it's under watch*

"...For some time Australian Taxation Office boss Chris Jordan has expressed publicly his frustration that technology giant Uber is not cooperative with the ATO on issues like its drivers paying GST, and that therefore the company could become the subject of an audit..."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...deputy-commissioner-says-20161104-gshyto.html

Aparently the ATO "dont understand" a company GST obligations either...


----------



## Skyring

observer said:


> Somehow I don't believe that, Uber doesn't care about the drivers keeping the 9%, Uber wants that 9% for itself or to keep fares lower for pax.


Well, think about it. It's a continuing incentive payment that Uber doesn't have to fund. More drivers on the roads equals better service equals more passengers equals more money for Uber.

Or, more likely perhaps, Uber could drop fares by ten percent.


----------



## MyRedUber

Uberx zoom said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...deputy-commissioner-says-20161104-gshyto.html
> Aparently the ATO "dont understand" a company GST obligations either...


Apparently, you haven't read the article, or you completely misunderstood what you've read.
We're discussing the drivers' GST obligations and you quote an article about Uber moving income to avoid their tax obligations.


----------



## Uberx zoom

MyRedUber said:


> Apparently, you haven't read the article, or you completely misunderstood what you've read.
> We're discussing the drivers' GST obligations and you quote an article about Uber moving income to avoid their tax obligations.


Hahaha.... look whos talking.

Drivers GST obligations and Uber misleading the ATO is precisely the problem here. Get a better pair of glasses in case you've missed that. The article starts with this very issue!

But hey, lets not let facts confuse you...


----------



## UberDriverAU

It looks like we are going to get a judgment on this in a couple of days time, so keep a look out for some news on Friday morning peeps!


----------



## Who is John Galt?

UberDriverAU said:


> It looks like we are going to get a judgment on this in a couple of days time, so keep a look out for some news on Friday morning peeps!
> 
> View attachment 97623


Thank you for the 'bump'.
Well deserved.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Who is John Galt? said:


> Thank you for the 'bump'.
> Well deserved.


It's a judgment that literally effects every single Uber driver, and the implications are huge. I'm actually looking forward to reading the judgment, lol.


----------



## UberRA

I just hope that if uber win, they won't cut the rate. Not that I think they will win.


----------



## Scotsman

Here is the verdict: http://www.afr.com/technology/uber-loses-gst-fight-with-the-tax-office-20170215-gudwza


----------



## JohnnyDee

And the OFFICIAL order by Justice Griffiths:

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD904/2015/3732300/event/28822013/document/909117


----------



## UberDriverAU

Here's the full judgement:

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca0110

It's business as usual for now people!


----------



## Who is John Galt?

Okay, I can see the ubes changing the name of the service from UberX to UberY and trying again.

Surely, the better course of action would be to argue discrimination against *ridesharing and taxis* in regard to the $75K threshold for other businesses, but Dollar 1 for all 'taxi type' services.

Get Cleaver Greene on the case, for crying out loud!


----------



## χ²(1)

UberDriverAU said:


> It's business as usual for now people!


What do you mean by "for now"?

Is there more action in the pipeline?


----------



## UberDriverAU

χ²(1) said:


> What do you mean by "for now"?
> 
> Is there more action in the pipeline?


I would be very surprised if Uber doesn't appeal this decision. For mine, the adjudicated interpretation of "taxi" is overly broad, and pretty much any vehicle that takes a passenger for reward will be considered a "taxi" under this definition. The legislation may as well say "by any vehicle," rather than "by taxi or limousine". If I was a wedding car operator, I'd now be thinking that I have to register for GST, because the definition of "taxi" for GST purposes is now (for the moment anyway):


> a vehicle available for hire by the public and which transports a passenger at his or her direction for the payment of a fare that will often, but not always, be calculated by reference to a taximeter.


The fact that a vehicle is only available for private hire is no longer a relevant consideration.


----------



## pajala

Did any expect a different result?


----------



## UberDriverAU

pajala said:


> Did any expect a different result?


I did. I think the new legal definition of "taxi" is overly broad. Limousines and wedding car operators can now be considered a "taxi" for GST purposes. What's the point in the legislation saying: _*"*taxi travel*" *_means travel that involves transporting passengers, *by taxi or limousine*, for fares. if the meaning of "taxi" and "limousine" are the same thing? Based on what I recall of the ATO's argument, they argued that a "taxi" and a "limousine" _are _essentially the same thing, which is obviously silly. The fact that taxi and limousine are listed separately in the legislation I think is important to how it should be constructed, and connotes that there is a discernible difference between the two. It doesn't just say "by motor vehicle", it specifically says "by taxi or limousine". As far as I can tell, the main point of difference is that a taxi is available for public hire, and limousine is not available for public hire (ie. it can't take rank and hail work, there must be a booking, which is what makes it "private hire").

Previously the ATO has said a wedding car operator isn't a "taxi" because they are not available for "public hire" (ie. don't do rank and hail work). If I was a wedding car operator and now had to backpay GST until 2002 when the ATO issued its "Interprative Decision" on wedding car operators, I'd be quite ropeable.


----------



## χ²(1)

UberDriverAU said:


> If I was a wedding car operator, I'd now be thinking that I have to register for GST, because the definition of "taxi" for GST purposes is now (for the moment anyway):


I'd guess that all wedding car operators are already registered for GST anyway.

If not, and the ATO requests backpaid GST from them, I'd expect these wedding car operators to raise a court challenge, just as Uber did.


----------



## UberDriverAU

χ²(1) said:


> I'd guess that all wedding car operators are already registered for GST anyway.
> 
> If not, and the ATO requests backpaid GST from them, I'd expect these wedding car operators to raise a court challenge, just as Uber did.


The ATO issued guidance in 2002 saying wedding car operators weren't required to be registered for GST if they weren't above the threshold. Based on this judgement, I'd say this guidance would now need to be changed. Clearly a wedding car is:


> a vehicle available for hire by the public and which transports a passenger at his or her direction for the payment of a fare.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

UberDriverAU said:


> I did. I think the new legal definition of "taxi" is overly broad. Limousines and wedding car operators can now be considered a "taxi" for GST purposes. What's the point in the legislation saying: _*"*taxi travel*" *_means travel that involves transporting passengers, *by taxi or limousine*, for fares. if the meaning of "taxi" and "limousine" are the same thing? Based on what I recall of the ATO's argument, they argued that a "taxi" and a "limousine" _are _essentially the same thing, which is obviously silly. The fact that taxi and limousine are listed separately in the legislation I think is important to how it should be constructed, and connotes that there is a discernible difference between the two. It doesn't just say "by motor vehicle", it specifically says "by taxi or limousine". As far as I can tell, the main point of difference is that a taxi is available for public hire, and limousine is not available for public hire (ie. it can't take rank and hail work, there must be a booking, which is what makes it "private hire").
> 
> Previously the ATO has said a wedding car operator isn't a "taxi" because they are not available for "public hire" (ie. don't do rank and hail work). If I was a wedding car operator and now had to backpay GST until 2002 when the ATO issued its "Interprative Decision" on wedding car operators, I'd be quite ropeable.


I think UberDriverAU is correct from a matter of statutory interpretation based on a textual analysis of the provisions, and the case could have gone the other way. It still just might if it goes on appeal.

I suspect the court applied an (unstated) contextual rather than textual approach and were concerned to ensure that rideshare receive the same tax treatment as taxis. When the GST legislation was drafted, rideshare of the kind we have now was beyond conception.

I also agree that the reasoning of the court would extend to wedding car operators. I don't see that as a bad result from a policy perspective.

Given that would result in a change of Australian Taxation Office interpretation to the detriment of taxpayers, I expect that the extension of taxi treatment to wedding car operators would be only on a prospective basis.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Jack Malarkey said:


> I think UberDriverAU is correct from a matter of statutory interpretation based on a textual analysis of the provisions, and the case could have gone the other way. It still just might if it goes on appeal.
> 
> I suspect the court applied an (unstated) contextual rather than textual approach and were concerned to ensure that rideshare receive the same tax treatment as taxis. When the GST legislation was drafted, rideshare of the kind we have now was beyond conception.


Judges are required to consider the purpose of the legislation, but they're not at liberty to in effect rewrite the words of the legislation. That's the sole domain of Parliament. That's what I think has happened here, the text of the legislation _requires_ a differentiation between "taxi" and "limousine", but we've been given a definition of "taxi" that makes the "or limousine" redundant. I think Uber has reasonable grounds for appeal because of that.


Jack Malarkey said:


> I also agree that the reasoning of the court would extend to wedding car operators. I don't see that as a bad result from a policy perspective.
> 
> Given that would result in a change of Australian Taxation Office interpretation to the detriment of taxpayers, I expect that the extension of taxi treatment to wedding car operators would be only on a prospective basis.


It would be pretty harsh to chase after someone for 15 years worth of GST back payments after telling them they didn't have to be registered for GST.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

I have obtained some information from the London forum about how value added tax (VAT) (the equivalent tax to Australia's GST) applies to taxi, Uber and hire car services in the United Kingdom. See https://uberpeople.net/threads/australian-gst-vat-case-on-uber-travel.142511/.

There is no provision in the United Kingdom that imposes VAT on taxi travel irrespective of turnover. Instead, the general provisions apply.

The threshold for businesses to need to register for VAT is annual turnover exceeding £83,000 (about AUD$135,000). Compare this with our own threshold of AUD$75,000 or more. The general VAT rate in the United Kingdom is 20% compared with our single GST rate of 10%.

I doubt there would be many taxi or Uber drivers over there with an annual turnover that exceeds £83,000 (or AUD$135,000). There would also be a strong incentive for those drivers who might otherwise cross the threshold to remain under it, and all the more so given the relatively high rate of VAT of 20% that applies if they do cross it.

It also puzzles me why the applicant in the case was Uber BV. The case concerned whether an UberX service provided by an Uber driver, Mr Brian Colin Fine, on 11 September 2015 was 'taxi travel' as defined in the GST legislation. See http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca0110 (near the beginning).

The relevant taxpayer was Mr Fine and not Uber. I would have therefore expected that Mr Fine would have been the applicant and not Uber BV even if Uber had materially assisted Mr Fine in pursuing the case.


----------



## UberDriverAU

Jack Malarkey said:


> It puzzles me why the applicant in the case was Uber BV. The case concerned whether an UberX service provided by an Uber driver, Mr Brian Colin Fine, on 11 September 2015 was 'taxi travel' as defined in the GST legislation. See http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca0110 (near the beginning).
> 
> The relevant taxpayer was Mr Fine and not Uber. I would have therefore expected that Mr Fine would have been the applicant and not Uber BV even if Uber had materially assisted Mr Fine in pursuing the case.


Uber was the one claiming the Commissioner wasn't applying the law correctly and sought a declaratory order that UberX drivers don't provide "taxi travel" for GST purposes. They simply used Mr Fine as a specific example. It could have been any driver and any trip. The judgment, although mentioning the specific instance of UberX service provision that Uber brought before the court, is clearly applicable generally because Uber operates the same way everywhere in Australia.


----------



## Jack Malarkey

Thanks, UberDriverAU. That explanation is helpful.


----------



## χ²(1)

UberDriverAU said:


> I would be very surprised if Uber doesn't appeal this decision.


Is there a "statute of limitations" for this appeal? i.e. 28 days to appeal


----------



## Instyle

UberDriverAU said:


> I did. I think the new legal definition of "taxi" is overly broad. Limousines and wedding car operators can now be considered a "taxi" for GST purposes. What's the point in the legislation saying: _*"*taxi travel*" *_means travel that involves transporting passengers, *by taxi or limousine*, for fares. if the meaning of "taxi" and "limousine" are the same thing? Based on what I recall of the ATO's argument, they argued that a "taxi" and a "limousine" _are _essentially the same thing, which is obviously silly. The fact that taxi and limousine are listed separately in the legislation I think is important to how it should be constructed, and connotes that there is a discernible difference between the two. It doesn't just say "by motor vehicle", it specifically says "by taxi or limousine". As far as I can tell, the main point of difference is that a taxi is available for public hire, and limousine is not available for public hire (ie. it can't take rank and hail work, there must be a booking, which is what makes it "private hire").
> 
> Previously the ATO has said a wedding car operator isn't a "taxi" because they are not available for "public hire" (ie. don't do rank and hail work). If I was a wedding car operator and now had to backpay GST until 2002 when the ATO issued its "Interprative Decision" on wedding car operators, I'd be quite ropeable.


The exception for Wedding Car Hire operators is still in place.

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/


----------

