The recent spate of cases before Australian courts and tribunals has highlighted questions around the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) payments: specifically, when a payer might be responsible for SGC contributions for services rendered. A noteworthy example involved the Australian Turf Club, where the Tribunal ruled that race day payments made to jockeys were subject to SGC. This decision stemmed from a specific provision in the Superannuation Guarantee legislation, which classifies individuals like artists, musicians, and sportspersons who are “paid to perform” as employees for SGC purposes. Thus, if payments are made to individuals in these categories for their performances, the payer generally must make SGC contributions on their behalf.
Conversely, a more recent AAT decision determined that a plumber hired by a plumbing firm was not considered an employee for SGC purposes, as he was running his own business and acted as an independent contractor. Key to this ruling was the level of control the plumbing firm had over the plumber’s work: it was minimal, with the plumber having the freedom to manage his tasks independently, advertise his services externally, and take on other clients.
In previous cases, the primary factor in determining independent contractor status—and thereby exemption from SGC obligations—has often been the "right to delegate" work. This right to delegate may be explicit or implied in a contract, and it remains a significant criterion even if it hasn’t been exercised.
In short, determining whether someone qualifies as an independent contractor or employee for SGC purposes largely depends on the details of the arrangement and the specific circumstances of the payment. Given the complexity, it’s advisable to consult for a professional review or a second opinion if there’s any uncertainty.
