Australia, Sept. 1 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 1:

1. THE COURT: This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a challenge by Uber Australia Pty Ltd (Uber), a wholly owned entity within the Uber group of companies, to the assessment by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Chief Commissioner) of payroll tax liability in respect of payments made to "Uber" drivers/partners. The difference between drivers and partners is explained by the primary judge in the primary judgment (Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] NSWSC 1124) at [4] and nothing relevantly turns on this difference. Reference to the drivers in these reasons includes reference to the partners, unless otherwise indicated.

2. The Chief Commissioner assessed Uber as liable for payroll tax and interest in the sum of approximately $81 million for the financial years 2015 to 2020 pursuant to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) (Payroll Tax Act). Uber unsuccessfully raised an objection to the assessments and then sought a review of the assessments pursuant to s 97 of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) (Taxation Administration Act). The outcome of that review was that the primary judge, Hammerschlag CJ in Eq, revoked the assessments and remitted the premium interest that had been imposed by the Chief Commissioner.

3. The Chief Commissioner has appealed from the orders made by the primary judge revoking the assessments and remitting the premium interest levied in respect of the assessments. Uber has filed an Amended Notice of Cross-Appeal challenging certain findings made by the primary judge in the course of the determination of its review application and the Chief Commissioner has filed an Amended Notice of Contention in relation to the cross-appeal.

4. Prior to the hearing of the matter in this Court, Uber advised that its case (relevantly, Ground 6 of its cross-appeal) involved a challenge to the correctness of two intermediate appellate court decisions (that of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Commissioner of State Revenue v Optical Superstore Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 197; (2019) 110 ATR 651 (Optical Superstore Appeal) and that of this Court in Thomas and Naaz Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] NSWCA 40 (Thomas & Naaz)). Although Uber's position was that this challenge was material but not critical to the disposition of its cross-appeal, a bench of five was constituted to hear the matter, having regard to the issue raised as to the proper construction of s 35(1) of the Payroll Tax Act and the importance of certainty in the interpretation of taxation legislation of this kind.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1985e3b07bf606746e773d0b)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.