In September this year, we took the opportunity to write in some detail about the payroll tax amnesty program[1] in South Australia, as outlined in RevenueSA’s Information Circular Number 106 (Circular), and some aspects of the program that might be of concern to medical practices considering registering an expression of interest.

One such concern was the requirement that medical practices, as a condition of eligibility for the amnesty, make a “voluntary disclosure” to RevenueSA. We posited that the breadth of that term in the Circular, and consequently, the breadth of information that RevenueSA might require a practice to disclose as to its structure, arrangements and affairs, might prove to be of concern to some practices. 

Given the context in which the amnesty was introduced, the pronouncement by RevenueSA of there being a potential widespread lack of awareness of the application of the “Relevant Contract” provisions among medical practices, and the amnesty intending to support medical practices to bring themselves forward and into compliance with their payroll tax obligations, one might have hoped, perhaps optimistically, that the amnesty would be administered generously to those medical practices falling squarely in the firing line under Revenue Ruling PTASA003

Some support for such a position is arguably to be found in the Circular. Whilst recognising the other sorts of information RevenueSA could ask practices to provide as part of administering the amnesty (couched in terms such as you “may be” requested or required to provide etc), the emphasis appeared to be on the actual wages data (including contractor GP payments), as opposed to an examination of the intricacies of the practice’s structure, or the specific terms of the arrangements with those contracted general practitioners. 

What is seemingly a standard response sent by RevenueSA to practices that have registered their interest in the amnesty has come as quite a shock to some practices where, off the bat, they are being required within 28 days to provide, inter alia, details of the structure of their practice including any associated or related entities, and copies of the contracts with contracted general practitioners.

Provision of such information may well lead to liabilities beyond the ambit of the amnesty if, for example, Revenue SA were to contend that the practice and any entities disclosed by the practice as possibly being associated or related to the practice constitute a group for payroll tax purposes. 

Some practices might find themselves in the invidious position of having to comply with such requests for information or otherwise risk disqualification from the amnesty but needing to recognise omitted payroll tax liabilities for other reasons, for example, because of a failure to appreciate the ambit of the grouping provisions. Even if disqualified, or for practices that might seek to withdraw their expression of interest on the basis of the breadth of RevenueSA’s request for information, audit activity might then soon follow. 

As we have raised previously, the other concern is the possible use of that information by RevenueSA post-administration of the amnesty to scrutinise the legitimacy of any restructuring undertaken by a practice to achieve valid legal and commercial objectives. 

Some further food for thought that ties into the above comment is an emerging position of RevenueSA with respect to fixed-share partners and the distribution of profit to such partners, possibly constituting wages assessable to the partnership. 

It has long been the view within the legal and accounting professions that partner drawings or profit distributions should not be regarded as wages. The concept of Wages, as explained in the Payroll Tax Act 2009 (SA), is a range of specified payments paid or payable to an employee and to a person who is not an employee, the latter nevertheless referring to payments to persons taken to be employees or from persons taken to be employers, including such payments by persons deemed to be employers under the Contractor provisions for or in relation to the performance of work relating to a Relevant Contract.

The interpretation of the Contractor provisions, particularly the scope of their deeming of payments as Wages by reason of the breadth of the definition of a Relevant Contract, will, it appears, now require careful consideration as to whether these drawings and distributions might be, and have been, included within the concept of Wages and, if so, whether a liability for payroll tax will exist, or has existed.

For practices structured as a partnership or for those considering moving to such a structure, the position in this regard will warrant some in-depth analysis, whether as to existing arrangements or those now contemplated. 

It goes without saying that any practice considering a restructure ought take considered legal, tax and accounting advice before embarking on this course.


This communication provides general information which is current as at the time of production. The information contained in this communication does not constitute advice and should not be relied upon as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in reliance on any of the information. Should you wish to discuss any matter raised in this article, or what it means for you, your business or your clients' businesses, please feel free to contact us.

For more information, please contact...

Daniel Idema

View Profile →

Related Articles

View All News
June 19, 2024 Do Not Disturb: What Employers Need to Know About the Fair Work ‘Right to Disconnect’
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
June 19, 2024 Schools and Payroll Tax: Assessing the Possibility for an Exemption
June 04, 2024 Fair Work Commission Annual Wage Review: Minimum Wage Increase Less Than Expected
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
May 21, 2024 Preparing for Payroll Tax Changes in Medical Practices: Clarity Still Required
April 18, 2024 2025 Edition of Best Lawyers: Celebrating Our Leaders and a Rising Star
Firm News Corporate & Commercial Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety + 6
April 02, 2024 Introducing DW Fox Tucker Lawyers Newest Director
Firm News Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety Workers Compensation & Self Insurance
December 20, 2023 Workplace Criminalisation: Labor Governments Criminalise Workplace Manslaughter and Wage Theft
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
December 20, 2023 Discretionary Trust Deed Issues
December 05, 2023 It’s Time to Fix Your Fixed-Term Contracts!
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
November 28, 2023 Payroll Tax and Medical Practices: An Update and Warning to Others
Tax Health & Aged Care Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
September 15, 2023 Payroll Tax and Medical Practices
Tax Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety Health & Aged Care
September 11, 2023 Taking Reasonable Care to Ensure Your Acts or Omissions Don’t Land You in Court
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
September 11, 2023 Advertising Health Services
Corporate & Commercial Health & Aged Care
September 06, 2023 Hospitality and Retail Brace for Impact
Hospitality Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
August 28, 2023 Guidelines: Telehealth Consultations With Patients
Insurance & Risk Management Health & Aged Care
August 02, 2023 Increase in Minimum Award Rates of Pay
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
July 05, 2023 Collaborating With Robots in the Workplace
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
June 08, 2023 Landmark Decision: Fair Work Commission Implements Historic Minimum Wage Hike
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
June 05, 2023 From Fixed Term to Permanent
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety
May 01, 2023 Countdown to the End of Zombie Agreements: Is Your Business Compliant?
Employment, Workplace Relations & Safety