When overseas workers are Australian employees

Clarke McEwan Accountants

When overseas workers are Australian employees

The Fair Work Commission has determined that a Philippines based “independent contractor” was an employee unfairly dismissed by her Australian employer.

Like us, you are probably curious how a foreign national living in the Philippines, who had an ‘independent contractors’ agreement with an Australian company, could be classified as an Australian employee by the Fair Work Commission?

The recent case of Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd highlights just some of the issues Australian businesses face when working with overseas contractors and staff.

What underpinned the Fair Work decision?

Ms Pascua worked under contract as a legal assistant, investigating credit claims on clients’ behalf, for a specialist credit repair legal firm based in Queensland between 21 July 2022 until 20 March 2024. She worked from home in the Philippines, using her own computer, a firm email address and a PBX phone system that gave the appearance that she was calling from the legal office.

The contract described the relationship as one of an independent contractor, with the standard clauses that the firm will not be liable for any other benefits or remuneration other than what was specified and that the firm was not liable for taxes, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, employer’s liability, social security or other entitlements. Ms Pascua also bore a liability in the event that something went awry with her work.

For her work, Ms Pascua was paid “AUD$18 per hour Salary all inclusive as a Full Time Employee,” capped at 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, excluding breaks. While working with the firm, Ms Pascua used a firm supplied pro forma invoice to bill 83 weekly invoices at the full hours allowable and 28 other invoices for lesser amounts when she worked less than 40 hours in the week.

For the first 12 months of her time with the legal firm she was supervised by a solicitor. Within 12 months, her work was unsupervised, and in the last 7 months of the relationship, she was the only person conducting investigative work.

Underpinning the Fair Work Commission’s decision were the recent High Court cases that changed the way in which disputes over the nature of employment relationships are determined (CFMMEU v. Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd and ZG Operations Pty Ltd and Jamsek). Whereas once the courts looked at the substance of the overall arrangement (let’s call it the ‘if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it’s a duck’ principal), now greater weight is given to the contract, with reference to the rights and duties created by that contract.

To determine this case, the FWC stepped through the contract clause by clause to evaluate whether it suggested an employment or independent contractor relationship, and looked at how these clauses were brought into effect.

In this case, on weight, the FWC determined Ms Pascua was an employee because the contract indicated that Ms Pascua was required to perform work “in the business of another”, instead of for her own enterprise. The contract suggested that:

Despite being described as a paralegal, she did not appear to be working in a distinct profession, trade or distinct calling. Her contract outlined administrative tasks and ad hoc duties.
The contract did not enable her to assign the work to another.
While there were daily targets in the contract – a result that she was expected to achieve – these tasks referenced weekly requirements and often could be carried over, suggesting ongoing work.
There was a level of control exerted by the legal firm over how Ms Pascua performed her work that suggests she was not running her own enterprise – the PBX phone system, the email address, the level of direction in the tasks to be performed in the daily instruction she received.
Despite being invoiced by Ms Pascua, the hourly rate described in the contract was that of a full-time employee, and the invoices were to be forwarded weekly for the previous week’s work. The FWC also noted that the most likely rate for Ms Pascua as an employee would be $30.95 per hour (the casual rate for level 2 legal clerical work). To this, the FWC noted that genuine independent contractors would normally specify a fee that was greater, not less, than the minimum wage.

The FWC found that the description of the arrangement as that of independent contractor belied the actual nature of the contract.

When it came to the clauses excluding matters such as the payment of income tax, workers compensation, annual and personal leave relied on by the legal firm as confirmation of an independent contractor arrangement, the FWC referred to the Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco case and others. That is, the FWC considers, “the statements in the contract about meeting the obligations consequent upon the labelling of the arrangement as one of independent contractor to have little weight in determining the true nature of the relationship.”

The new definition of employee and employer

In August 2024, a new definition of what is an employee and employer came into effect in the Fair Work Act. This new definition extends the High Court’s decision in CFMMEU v. Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd and ZG Operations Pty Ltd and Jamsek to rely on the nature of the contract between the parties, not just what the contract says. The intent of the legislative change appears to be to ensure that clever drafting of a contract alone will not be sufficient to define an independent contractor arrangement.

The Fair Work Act now requires that the true relationship between the parties is, “determined by ascertaining the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the relationship between the individual and the person.” The totality of the relationship needs to be considered including how the contract is performed in practice.

What does this decision mean for employers?

The FWC’s decision in Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd highlights how cautious employers should be about the nature of employment relationships. Just because you label an arrangement as that of an independent contractor, does not mean it is. And if you get it wrong, beyond the industrial relations impact, you might be liable for the tax, payroll tax and workers compensation payments that should have been made.

What makes this decision unusual is how an international employment arrangement can be drawn into the national workplace system. Regardless of the geographic location of an employee, if your business is an Australian national system employer (bound by the Fair Work Act), and the individual is deemed to be an employee, the same rights and obligations may apply to that employee as to other employees located in Australia.

While not addressed in this case, the FWC also referred to the minimum wage for a paralegal performing work such as that undertaken by Ms Pascua. While not applicable to this case, from 1 January 2025, wage theft will become a criminal offence - where an employer is required to pay an amount to an employee but intentionally underpays. For international employees where rates might be significantly different to Australian expectations, it is more important than ever to ensure you have characterised the employment relationship correctly.

Tax obligations and international workers

We’re often asked about the implications of working with overseas, non-resident workers who are working for a resident Australian company.

Let’s say you want to engage the services of a non-resident individual.

Contactor or employee?

The first step is to ensure that the arrangement is correctly classified. As we have seen from the Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd case, this really depends on the specific situation. From a tax perspective, the ATO has outlined their guidance in Employee or independent contractor, but you might need specific advice if you are uncertain.

Implications of an employment relationship

If the worker is classified as an employee and they are a non-resident for Australian tax purposes, then they should only be taxed in Australia on income that has an Australian source. However, you need to check whether a double tax agreement (DTA) could impact on the outcome – Australia has around 45 bilateral DTAs. For example, if the employee was a resident of say the Philippines, then Article 15 of the double tax agreement (DTA) between Australia and the Philippines generally prevents Australia from taxing the employment income unless the work is performed in Australia.

Pay as you go (PAYG) withholding should not generally apply if the worker is a non-resident employee and is only deriving foreign sourced income. Generally, PAYG does not need to be withheld under the PAYGW rules from a payment of salary / wages to someone if the payments are not taxed in Australia.

Superannuation guarantee should not apply if all the work is performed overseas, and the worker is a non-resident.

It will be important to get specialist advice in the employee’s country of residency to determine whether there are any obligations that need to be satisfied under local tax or super systems (e.g., withholding, superannuation or superannuation like contributions, etc).

Tax implications of independent contractors

If the worker is classified as a genuine independent contractor (or they are working through a trust or company) and they are a non-resident, then they should only be taxed in Australia on Australian sourced income. Using the same example, if the contractor is a resident of the Philippines, then Article 7 of the DTA would generally prevent Australia from taxing their business profits or income unless they relate to a permanent establishment that the contractor has in Australia (see Will a foreign worker mean your business is carrying on a business overseas? below).

PAYG withholding should not apply as long as:

The contractor provides an ABN; or
A DTA prevents the income from being taxed in Australia; or
The contractor does not carry on an enterprise in Australia. If the contractor performs all their work overseas, they don't have any physical presence or employees in Australia, then it might be possible to argue that they don't carry on an enterprise in Australia. The company could ask the contractor to complete a statement by supplier.

Payments to foreign contractors might need to be reported to the ATO on the taxable payment annual report (TPAR) if your business provides building and construction, cleaning, courier and road freight, IT or security, investigation or surveillance services.

Will a foreign worker mean your business is carrying on a business overseas?

By having foreign workers, there is a risk that the business will be considered to be carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in the relevant foreign country. This could potentially expose an Australian business to tax in the foreign country on some of its business profits.

A permanent establishment is generally defined in Australia’s double tax agreements as being a fixed place of business through which the business of the enterprise is carried on in whole or part. Each DTA is a unique document which means that the definition of permanent establishment might be different depending on which foreign country you are dealing with.

This area can become complex very quickly and it is a good idea to get advice to ensure that you have certainty about your obligations.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Reviewing your fund’s investment strategy

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

Superannuation law requires trustees of SMSFs to formulate, regularly review and give effect to an investment strategy that has regard to the whole of the circumstances of the fund. Although there is nothing in the law stating a timeframe that may define ‘review regularly’, it is commonly accepted that this would be at least annually. This aligns with comments on the ATO’s website where they expect reviews to occur at least annually. Some trustees will undertake an annual review leading up to, or at the beginning of a new financial year, while others will undertake the review as part of reviewing the completed financial accounts from the previous financial year. Neither is the right or wrong option, and you must consider what is best for your situation. Either way, you will need to be able to show your fund’s auditor that you have reviewed the investment strategy and documented any decisions made, whether it be recording changes deemed necessary or determined the existing strategy remains appropriate. There may be other times that it is appropriate to review the investment strategy. These may include when: There is a market correction; A member joins or leaves the fund; A member starts a pension in the fund. An investment policy will generally be comprised of two parts: 1. Investment objective – this part outlines the fund’s objectives and expected outcomes. For example, an objective may be to achieve a certain level of return over a certain period. This would generally take into account the age of the members, their retirement needs and investment risk profile. 2. Investment strategy – this part outlines how the fund will achieve the stated objectives. For example, it may include investment asset ranges or specific assets that will be held. When reviewing your fund’s investment strategy, consideration must be given to: The risk of holding particular investments and their returns, with regards to the fund’s objectives and expected cashflow requirements; Composition of investments and the risk of inadequate diversification; Liquidity of investments, with regards to expected cashflow requirements; Ability to discharge existing and prospective liabilities; and Whether insurance cover for one or more members should be held by the fund. Although these points need to be considered, it is up to the trustees to determine how they are applied, based on the circumstances of the fund. As an example, you must consider the diversification of the fund’s assets, but that does not mean you are required to have a diversified investment strategy. Many funds hold just a property and a bank account, and this may be appropriate for those funds. However, the trustees should document what consideration they gave to diversification, why the lack of diversification is appropriate and why they have chosen these particular assets. Likewise, there is no legal requirement to hold insurance cover for the members, but you do need to document that it has been considered. As noted above, a member starting a pension may be reason to review the fund’s investment strategy. This is due to the fact that this is likely to change the liquidity considerations and investment profile of the fund. When members are all in the pre-retirement growth phase, expenses are usually more predictable and there isn’t a need for many funds to hold large cash reserves. Once members reach the point they are accessing their benefits, as either pension or lump sum payments (or both), cashflow, liquidity and a potential cash buffer become a more important consideration. It is not uncommon that leading up to the end of any given financial year we will field enquiries and concerns from trustees that do not have the cash to satisfy even the minimum pension requirements for the year. While there may be several reasons for this, it should raise questions about the appropriateness of the fund’s current investment strategy and considerations as to whether a review of the asset holdings is warranted. If we revisit the one property and one bank account funds mentioned early, this may have been a reasonable strategy during the growth phase, but does it remain so during the drawdown phase? Although many people are comfortable with property and Australian investors in general have an affinity for the old bricks and mortar, this does not mean it is an appropriate investment in all circumstances. If the rental income from the property cannot support your retirement needs and minimum pension withdrawal requirements, something needs to change. This will hold true for any other investment that may not be easily sold, such as holdings in unlisted companies and trusts. Reviewing your fund’s investment strategy and giving consideration to the needs of the members and the asset holdings of the fund should not be seen as just a tick-a-box legal requirement. You’ve worked hard to build you retirement wealth and when the time comes, you want to be able to enjoy it. Having an appropriate investment strategy that will allow this is an important element of running an SMSF. Have you reviewed your strategy lately?

“Widow tax” fixed

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

Federal Parliament has closed an unintended loophole in the recent negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms that became widely known as the “widow tax”. At the same time, the Government also fixed a technical issue that could have affected people who first use a main residence to generate rental income after Budget night on 12 May 2026. What the problem was As you might be aware, the tax rules have recently been changed to ensure that losses generated from residential rental properties from 1 July 2027 can be ‘quarantined’. This means that they can only be offset against income or capital gains generated from other residential rental properties. However, the changes won’t generally apply to properties that were purchased by the relevant taxpayer before 12 May 2026. However, a problem could arise when an ownership interest in a property passes to someone as a result of the death of the original owner or because of a relationship breakdown and this occurs after 12 May 2026. Under the original version of the new rules, that transfer could be treated as a new acquisition. This could have meant that a surviving spouse or former partner risked losing the protected negative gearing treatment that had applied to the property in the hands of the previous owner. How it was fixed The Government moved quickly once the issue was identified. Some new rules now specifically protect people who acquire a residential property interest from a spouse because of death or relationship breakdown. The rules can also potentially protect someone who inherits an additional ownership interest in a rental property from a co-owner who isn’t their spouse. Case study 1 – the widow tax fix Sarah and David bought a rental unit in 2019 as equal joint owners. The property has always been negatively geared, with annual rental losses of around $8,000 offset against their other income each year. Under the original May 2026 reforms, the property was protected because it was acquired well before Budget night. However, if David had died and the property transferred fully into Sarah’s name, the additional 50% interest that Sarah inherited from David’s estate risked being treated as a new acquisition. Sarah could have lost the ability to claim the losses generated from this interest in the property against her other income. With the updated rules now in place, that outcome is avoided. Because the transfer occurs due to the death of a spouse, Sarah keeps the original protected treatment and can continue offsetting the rental losses in the same way as before. Former main residences A related technical issue also needed fixing. Under the original rules there was a risk that an existing main residence purchased before 12 May 2026 could lose its protected status if it was later first used to generate taxable rental income after that date. This was because of the interaction with a long-standing tax rule that can treat someone as if they had reacquired a former main residence when it is first used to produce income. The Government has now passed legislation to correct this. The new rules specifically disregard that “first use to produce income” rule when determining the acquisition date for negative gearing purposes. Case study 2 – renting out a former home James bought his home in 2018 and has lived in it as his main residence ever since. In 2027 he decides to move in with his partner and rent the property out for the first time. Under the original drafting of the 2026 reforms, first renting the property after 12 May 2026 risked resetting its acquisition date. That could have caused the property to be treated as a post-Budget night acquisition and subjected to the tighter negative gearing limits. With the new rules now in place, that reset is disregarded for negative gearing purposes. Because James originally acquired the property before 7:30 pm on 12 May 2026, it keeps its original acquisition date. He can continue to offset any rental losses in the same way as if the property had always been an investment property acquired before Budget night. Why these fixes matter Both changes remove sources of unexpected cash-flow disruption. The “widow tax” fix protects people at a difficult personal time. The main residence clarification gives homeowners greater flexibility if their circumstances change and they later decide to rent out a property they already own. What you should do now If you own a jointly held investment property acquired before 12 May 2026, the “widow tax” fix provides reassurance that a future transfer on death or separation should not remove negative gearing rights, but the rules are still complex and it is always best to have the position checked. If you own a main residence bought before 12 May 2026 and are considering renting it out in future, the new rule means the property should keep its original acquisition date for negative gearing purposes, but there could still be some complex CGT implications. Keep clear records of the original purchase date and ownership history. If either situation applies to you and you would like confirmation of how the amended rules work in your circumstances, contact us.

$21 billion in lost super is waiting

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

More than $21 billion in lost and unclaimed superannuation is currently sitting idle across Australia, according to the latest ATO figures. The average lost account holds around $41,000. Last year alone the ATO reunited more than $1.1 billion with members. That is real money that could be working harder for your retirement. Tax time is the natural moment to check whether any of it belongs to you. How super becomes “lost” Super generally becomes lost when an account becomes inactive and the fund can no longer contact the member. Common triggers include: Changing jobs and leaving an old account behind Moving house or updating your phone number without telling the fund Changing your name When the fund cannot reach you, the account may be classified as lost. In some cases, the balance is eventually transferred to the ATO to hold until the rightful owner claims it. The money does not disappear; it simply sits waiting to be reunited with its owner. A five-minute health check Finding lost super is straightforward and free. The quickest way is through ATO online services via myGov: 1. Log in to myGov and open the ATO section. 2. Select Super, then Fund details. 3. You will see any active accounts plus any lost or ATO-held super linked to your tax file number. You can also use the ATO app or call the automated lost super search line on 13 28 65. A paper form is available if you prefer. Many people are surprised by what turns up from old accounts from early jobs, small balances that have grown over time, or larger amounts they had completely forgotten about. Especially valuable if you are approaching retirement For clients still decades from retirement, finding lost super is useful. For those at or approaching retirement age it can be particularly meaningful. An extra $20,000 or $40,000 (or more) can make a noticeable difference to the size of the nest egg available to draw on. Even smaller amounts compound further once consolidated into a single active account that continues to earn returns and attract any future contributions. One important practical warning before you consolidate If you decide to roll multiple accounts into one preferred fund, check the insurance cover attached to each account first. Death, total and permanent disability, or income-protection cover that comes with a super account can sometimes end when the balance is rolled over. Losing that cover without realising it can leave a gap in your protection at the exact time you may need it most. Speak with your fund or adviser before consolidating so you understand exactly what will transfer and what will not. The commercial upside is simple Every dollar sitting in a lost or low-balance account is potentially earning less than it could, or incurring unnecessary fees. Bringing the money into one active account usually reduces fees, improves investment choice, and makes it easier to keep track of your overall position. The ATO’s reunification figures show that when people do the search, meaningful amounts are regularly returned. The process takes only a few minutes and costs nothing. Given that more than $21 billion is currently waiting to be claimed, the odds that some of it belongs to you are higher than many people expect. You can start the free search here: https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/superannuation-searching-for-lost-superannuation If you would like help interpreting what you find, or advice on whether consolidation makes sense in your circumstances (including the insurance check), just get in touch. A short conversation now can put money back into your retirement savings that might otherwise stay forgotten.

Travel records under the microscope

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

Travel records under the ATO microscope

Should You Buy or Lease Your Business Premises?

By Clarke McEwan • October 7, 2026

Owning your business premises can build long-term wealth and eliminate rent increases. Leasing can offer greater flexibility and preserve cash flow. Every business is different. Let us help you analyse the costs and benefits so you can make the right decision. 📞 Get in touch today.

Should you buy or lease your business assets?

By Clarke McEwan • September 18, 2026

There are certain items of equipment, machinery and hardware that are essential to the operation of your business – whether it’s the delivery van you use to run your client deliveries, diagnostic equipment in your medical practice or the high-end digital printer to run your print business. But when a critical business asset is required, should you buy this item outright, or should you lease the item and pay for it in handy monthly instalments? To buy or to lease? That is the question Buying new pieces of business equipment, plant, machinery or vehicles can be an expensive investment. So, depending on your financial situation, it’s important to weigh up the pros and cons of buying, or opting for a leasing option. First of all, let’s look at why you might decide to buy the item… Buying: the pros and cons: - Pro: It’s a tangible asset – when you buy an item, you own the item outright and it will appear on your balance sheet as one your business assets. As such, by owning these assets outright you increase the perceived capital and value of your business. You can also claim the cost of the asset against your capital allowance for tax purposes. - Pro: It’s yours for the life of the asset – once you own the item, you have full use of the equipment for the duration of the life of the asset. Your use of the asset isn’t reliant on you being able to keep up regular lease payments, and if your financial circumstances change then you can sell the asset to free up the capital. - Con: It’s an expensive outlay – paying for the item up-front is a large outlay for the business and will require you having the cash to cover this cost. Spending a large lump sum in this way may take cash away from other areas of the business, so you need to be 100% sure that this purchase is the right decision and a sound investment. - Con: You may require extra funding – if you don’t have the liquid cash available to buy the item outright, you may need to take out a loan. Asset finance is available from funding providers, but does tie you into a loan agreement that will add to your liabilities as a business – reducing your worth on the balance sheet. Leasing: the pros and cons: - Pro: Leasing has a cheaper entry point – if the item you need to purchase has a large price tag, leasing allows you to make use of the asset without the cost of buying it in full. For start-ups and smaller businesses with minimal capital behind them, this can make leasing a very attractive option. You may not own the asset, but you can make use of it – and this may be the difference between the success or failure of your business. - Pro: You can spread the cost – there is still an associated cost of leasing, but you can spread the cost over a longer period, making it easier to find the necessary liquid cash to meet your lease payments. With this money saved, you can then invest in other areas of the business, helping you to expand, grow and bring in more customers and revenue. - Con: You don’t own the asset – there are different types of leasing agreement. Under a capital lease, you do own the asset (once you’ve paid if off). But if you opt for an operating lease, this is a more short-term lease and you won’t own the asset at the end of the contract. Ownership does have its advantages (including being able to sell off the asset if required) so it’s important to consider what kind of leasing agreement you’re entering into and what the advantages/disadvantages may be. - Con: You may pay more in the long run – most leasing agreements will attract additional costs and interest on your agreement, so you may well end up paying more than the market price for your asset in the long term. If you can cope with the higher cost, this is fine, but bear in mind that buying outright may have offered greater value. - Con: You may lose the use of the asset – if you can’t keep up your lease payments (due to poor cashflow for example) then the owner of the lease agreement may recall the asset. If this item is crucial to your business model, losing this key asset can have a profound impact on your ability to operate. In this respect, leasing is a more risky prospect, but also an easier option for businesses with less cash to splash.Talk to us about whether buying or leasing is the best way forward. Whether you opt to buy or lease your equipment isn’t always a straightforward decision to make – so it’s a good idea to consult with your accountant early on in the decision-making process. We’ll help you review your current financial position, assess your available cashflow and look at your regular cost base to decide whether buying or leasing is the right thing for your business.