Contradiction – A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another
The Commissioner of Taxation has shown us his ability to bend and twist in relation to the FBT exemption that applies to taxi travel by an employee beginning or ending at the employee’s place of work.
He states that the exemption is limited to travel in a vehicle licensed by the relevant state or territory to operate as a taxi. It does not extend to ride-sourcing services provided in a vehicle that is not licensed to operate as a taxi. Have a look at this…
The exemption is limited to travel in a vehicle licensed by the relevant state or territory to operate as a taxi. It does not extend to ride-sourcing services provided in a vehicle that is not licensed to operate as a taxi.
The Commissioner says nothing to explain why the term “taxi” in the FBTAA does not include an Uber… However, according to the Commissioner, the term “taxi” in the GST Act does include an Uber so that Uber drivers have to register for GST for their first trip, rather than when their turnover in over $75,000.
Ride-sourcing, sometimes referred to as ride-sharing, is an ongoing arrangement where:
- you (a driver) make a car available for public hire for passengers
- a passenger uses a third-party digital platform, such as a website or an app, to request a ride, for example, Uber, Hi Oscar, Shebah, or GoCatch
- you use the car to transport the passenger for payment (a fare).
Income tax applies to your ride sourcing income. Ride-sourcing is also subject to goods and services tax (GST). All ride-sourcing drivers need to have an Australian business number (ABN) and be registered for GST.
For GST you need:
- an ABN
- to register for GST from the day you start, regardless of how much you earn
Would it possibly be that the Commissioner interprets the term “taxi” in two contradictory ways in two different Acts so that they both end up in his favour (he gets more FBT and more GST)?