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 >

The ATO Targets FBT on Work Vehicles: Don’t Let Assumptions Cost You

By Clarke McEwan • April 23, 2026

The ATO is turning up the heat on employers who provide work vehicles for private use. Sophisticated data-matching means assumptions and shortcuts can quickly lead to audits, penalties, interest charges—and even reputational damage. You can see the latest ATO FBT audit warning here: Misreporting FBT on personal use of work vehicles | Australian Taxation Office If you provide vehicles to your team, whether to support fieldwork, boost morale, or offer a valuable perk, now is the time to ensure your FBT reporting is watertight. Here’s what the ATO is focusing on—and how to protect your business. Don’t Assume Dual-Cab Utes Are Automatically Exempt Dual-cab utes are popular in trades and construction, but despite popular opinion, they’re not automatically FBT-free. Whether an FBT exemption applies can depend on the vehicle’s design and also how it is used across the FBT year. Even if a ute is designed to carry a load of at least 1 tonne (ie, it is not classified as a car for FBT purposes) or it isn’t designed mainly to carry passengers (there is a specific formula used for this purpose) FBT could still be triggered if there is some private use of the ute. The ATO has identified many cases where employers wrongly claimed full FBT exemptions, leading to back taxes plus interest. The best way to handle ATO enquiries around the FBT exemption for commercial vehicles is to ensure that appropriate evidence is already in place to support the application of that exemption. While the FBT rules don’t specifically require formal logbooks when looking at this exemption, failing to keep records that are similar to a logbook can make it difficult to navigate ATO review or audit activities. Accurately Apportion Private vs Business Use If a full FBT exemption doesn’t apply then FBT is typically calculated on private use of work vehicles. You need to determine what portion of running costs—fuel, maintenance, depreciation—relates to personal trips. Ignoring this step can seem harmless but can quickly escalate during an audit. Thorough record-keeping and proper apportioning can sometimes reduce your FBT liability even if the vehicle is used mainly for business purposes. Remember that if a FBT liability is triggered it is the employer’s problem. Lodging FBT Returns Even if you think the FBT liability for the year might be small or immaterial, you might find that there is still an obligation to lodge an FBT return. The ATO’s analytics flag non-lodgers automatically. Penalties can reach up to 200% of the tax owed, plus interest. Tip: Mark your calendar—FBT returns are due May 21 each year. Timely filing keeps your business compliant and avoids cash flow shocks. Keep Reliable Logbooks and Records A valid logbook tracks odometer readings, trip purposes, and business-use percentages over a 12-week period (renewable every five years). While not every scenario involving a motor vehicle specifically requires a valid logbook, failing to keep logbooks can sometimes lead to significant FBT liabilities that could otherwise have been avoided. Efficiency tip: Digital logbook apps simplify tracking, save time, and reduce errors. Good records can also support deductions. Why it Matters Commercially Non-compliance isn’t just a numbers game. ATO audits divert time and energy from running your business, and ATO attention can affect your reputation with clients, partners, or lenders. Conversely, getting FBT right ensures you pay only what’s required, protects cash flow, and may even reveal tax efficiencies. Next steps: Review your vehicle policies, update records, and ask us if you need help. We help businesses manage FBT with confidence—making compliance straightforward and stress-free. Remember: assumptions can be costly, but a proactive approach protects your business, your people, and your peace of mind.

Key Lessons from the Kilgour Case: Smarter Valuations in Business Sale Transactions

By Clarke McEwan • April 23, 2026

When selling a business—or even a slice of one—how you value the assets involved can have a major impact on the tax bill. A recent Full Federal Court decision, Kilgour v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCAFC 183, offers timely guidance on how “market value” is really determined for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes. When preparing for transactions, restructures or potential exit events, the case is a useful reminder: valuations must reflect real commercial conditions, not just theoretical models. What Happened? In 2016, three family trusts sold 100% of the shares in Punters Paradise Pty Ltd, an online wagering business, to News Corp for approximately $31 million. The ownership split was: Pettett Trust – 60% Kilgour Family Trust – 20% Reuhl Family Trust – 20% The sale was negotiated at arm’s length, involved extensive due diligence, and included a working-capital adjustment after completion. The minority beneficiaries (20% holders) sought to use the small business CGT concessions, which in this case required the seller’s net assets to be below $6 million. To fall below the threshold, they argued their 20% minority interests should be heavily discounted in value—because a small holding is usually worth less on a standalone basis. The ATO disagreed, saying each 20% parcel formed part of a coordinated 100% sale and should simply be valued as 20% of the final $31 million deal price. The Court agreed with the ATO. How the Court Approached Market Value The Court applied the long-standing “willing buyer/willing seller” principles from Spencer v Commonwealth—but with a modern, commercial twist. Two practical messages emerge: 1. Real-world expectations matter more than rigid valuation dates Although the tax rules in this area require looking at value “just before” signing the sale contract, the Court said you cannot ignore things that were reasonably predictable at that point. Here, the sale was essentially locked in through negotiations, so the final agreed price was the best evidence of market value. Practical takeaway: If a purchaser is clearly willing to pay a premium—for control, synergies, strategic value or expansion opportunities—those factors will likely shape the valuation for tax purposes. 2. Actual deal terms beat theoretical discounts The taxpayers tried to argue for a typical “minority discount”. However, the Court said the real commercial context matters more: All shareholders intended to sell together The buyer wanted all the shares, not bits and pieces. A coordinated, 100% sale typically lifts the value of each parcel. Because of that, the hypothetical buyer would not insist on a discount. The minority interests effectively rode on the value of the full-stake sale. Practical takeaway: When shareholders act collectively, the tax valuation of each interest can increase—sometimes significantly. What This Means for Business Owners Don’t undervalue your stake - If the buyer is pursuing synergies or control, your interest might be worth more than a textbook minority valuation suggests. Make sure your advisers consider the wider commercial picture. Evidence is everything - Keep thorough records such as negotiations, emails, valuations, buyer motivations. These can be powerful in supporting your tax position and accessing concessions. Plan CGT concession eligibility early - If you’re relying on the small business concessions, test different deal scenarios before signing any contracts or other paperwork, including a heads of agreement. Sometimes restructuring ownership or staging a sale can make a material difference, but integrity and anti-avoidance rules in the tax system still need to be considered carefully. Align shareholder expectations - In family groups and private companies, minority owners often assume their shares will be valued as a standalone piece. Kilgour shows that courts will often look at the transaction as a whole—not each slice in isolation. The Bottom Line Kilgour reinforces that valuations for tax purposes work best when they reflect the real commercial world, not theoretical models. Before you sell, restructure or negotiate with a potential buyer, involve your accountant early. A well-supported valuation can mean the difference between accessing valuable CGT concessions—or missing out.

A Wake-Up Call for Family Businesses on Fringe Benefits Tax

By Clarke McEwan • April 23, 2026

As Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) lodgement season approaches, family businesses should carefully review the perks they provide to working directors and family members. A high-profile case involving luxury vehicles provided to three brothers who run a large business empire through a discretionary trust highlights the complexities — and potential risks — of informal arrangements. While the case initially appeared to expand FBT exposure, the latest decision handed down by the Full Federal Court offers reassurance that not all benefits provided to working owners will automatically trigger FBT. What may seem like harmless "owner entitlements" or beneficiary perks can still attract scrutiny from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). However, the courts have emphasised the importance of substance, documentation, and the capacity in which benefits are provided. The Background Three brothers operate a substantial business involving petrol stations, convenience stores, fast food, tobacco outlets, and gift shops. They serve as shareholders, directors, and key decision-makers (with powers as appointors under the trust deed), working long hours in executive-style roles without drawing formal cash salaries or wages. Profits and benefits flow through the family discretionary trust (SFT Trust), of which their corporate trustee (SEPL Pty Ltd) is the trustee. The brothers and family members are beneficiaries. The business provided them with exclusive access to over 40 luxury and high-performance vehicles (including Bentleys and Ferraris) for both business and personal use. Costs associated with personal use were debited to the matriarch’s beneficiary account and later cleared by trust distributions — a mechanism consistent with beneficiary entitlements rather than employment remuneration. The ATO assessed FBT on the private use component of these car benefits, arguing they were fringe benefits provided to the brothers as "employees" in respect of their employment. What the Court Decided The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) initially ruled in favour of the taxpayer ( Re BQKD and Commissioner of Taxation [2024] AATA 1796). It found that the brothers were not "employees" for FBT purposes and that, even on a hypothetical basis, the vehicle benefits were not provided "in respect of" any employment. The benefits were instead linked to their capacities as beneficiaries, proprietors, and controlling family members. The Commissioner appealed to a single judge of the Federal Court, who in June 2025 ( Commissioner of Taxation v SEPL Pty Ltd as trustee of the SFT Trust [2025] FCA 581) allowed the appeal. Justice O'Sullivan held that the brothers were employees under the broad FBT definitions (including via the hypothetical deeming rule in s 137 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth) — FBTAA) and that the benefits were provided in respect of their employment. The taxpayer then appealed to the Full Federal Court. On 27 March 2026, in SEPL Pty Ltd as trustee of the SFT Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 36 (Perry, O’Callaghan and Thawley JJ), the Full Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The Full Federal Court basically restored the AAT's decision. Key findings: Employee status: It was open to the AAT to conclude the brothers were not "employees" for FBT purposes. The definitions of "employee" and "salary or wages" ultimately draw on common law concepts of employment. The AAT properly considered factors such as the absence of employment contracts, no wages or leave entitlements, the presence of employed managers for operational roles, and the brothers' control being referable to their proprietorial and governance roles rather than traditional employment. "In respect of" employment: Even assuming (hypothetically) that the brothers were employees, it was open to the AAT to find there was no sufficient material connection between the benefits and any employment relationship. Here, access to the vehicles was not a substitute for salary or wages. The AAT correctly weighed competing explanations and found the benefits arose primarily from family/trust relationships, not employment. Why This Matters for Your Business The case underscores the ATO's ongoing focus on dual-capacity individuals (e.g., directors who are also beneficiaries and active workers in trust structures). However, the Full Court's reasoning provides important boundaries: Informal perks for working family members in discretionary trusts are not automatically subject to FBT. Substance and documentation matter: How benefits are provided, funded, and recorded (e.g., via trust distributions vs. remuneration) can help in determining the outcome. Common law employment concepts remain relevant in interpreting FBT definitions. Blending roles does not inevitably trigger FBT if the dominant characterisation is beneficiary-based. Family businesses should still exercise caution. The ATO may continue to scrutinise similar arrangements, particularly where benefits appear to represent a substitute for remuneration or lack clear documentation. Superannuation contributions or executive titles can sometimes support employee characterisation, though they were not decisive here. Practical Steps to Protect Your Business Don't wait for an audit—review your arrangements now: Document clearly: If a benefit is a trust distribution to a beneficiary, record it via trustee resolutions. If it's tied to work duties, treat it as a fringe benefit and calculate FBT accordingly. Or confirm why they fall outside the regime. Consider FBT properly: Apply statutory formulas or operating cost methods for cars. Employee contributions (e.g., reimbursing personal use) can reduce or eliminate liability. Consider exemptions/concessions: Minor benefits under $300, or salary packaging for EVs, might help. Audit overlaps: We also need to check for Division 7A loan issues or deemed dividends if benefits flow through private companies. Plan proactively: With ATO focus intensifying (as highlighted in recent compliance updates), model scenarios to minimise tax without losing commercial perks. Remember that if the ATO discovers some unreported FBT liabilities then the business can also be exposed to penalties and interest. The SEPL case ultimately favours the taxpayer and reinforces that FBT does not capture every benefit provided to working owners in family trust structures. However, every arrangement turns on its specific facts and evidence. If your business provides vehicles, phones, travel, or other perks to family members actively involved in operations — especially without formal salaries — now is a good time to review. Our team can help analyse your structures, run FBT calculations or risk assessments, and implement practical fixes to protect profits while maintaining flexibility. The law in this area is fact-sensitive and continues to evolve. Professional advice tailored to your circumstances is essential.

What the New Div 296 Tax Means for Individuals with Large Super Balances

By Clarke McEwan • April 23, 2026

The Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions measure (known as the Division 296 tax) is now law and takes effect from 1 July 2026. For those with large super balances, it’s important to understand what the new tax does, why it’s been introduced, and the practical steps you and your financial adviser should consider. The Purpose of the Tax Division 296 is designed to make superannuation tax concessions fairer and more sustainable. Rather than changing the way super is taxed for everyone, the law targets a small group of people who hold large super balances, ensuring they pay more tax on the portion of investment earnings that relate to those large balances. Who it Applies to — Thresholds and Rates This new measure, starting 1 July 2026 (first year is 2026-27), applies to an individual with total superannuation balances (TSBs) in excess of the following thresholds: • Large balance threshold: $3.0 million • Very large threshold: $10.0 million. Both thresholds will be indexed in future years. This will mean that the overall tax imposed on superannuation fund earnings will be as follows: Division 296 TSB Band Tax Rate Effective Tax Rate Up to $3,000,000 0% 15% (standard fund tax) $3,000,001 to $10,000,000 15% 30% (15% + 15%) Above $10,000,000 25% 40% (15% + 25%) Certain people will be excluded from having this new tax levied upon them, notwithstanding that their TSB may exceed the threshold. Excluded persons include child recipients of death benefit pensions and individuals who have made structured settlement superannuation contributions for a personal injury compensation payment. Further, where a person dies, they will no longer have a TSB. However, other than the first year of operation (ie, 2026-27), there can still be a Division 296 tax assessment in respect of the financial year in which they die, where they had a TSB of more than $3 million at the start of the year. Given superannuation is not an estate asset, this scenario should be considered as part of a review of an individual’s estate plan. How the Tax Works From an SMSF perspective, the fund will calculate its Division 296 earnings, which is based on its taxable income with adjustments for assessable contributions; net exempt income attributable to pensions; any non-arm’s length income (which is already taxed at 45%) and income relating to investments in a pooled superannuation trust. There may also be adjustments for any capital gains made from the disposal of fund assets, if the fund has made the relevant small-fund CGT election. The calculated Division 296 superannuation earnings is then attributed to fund members using an attribution percentage calculated by an actuary. This information will be used by the ATO to assess the member’s Division 296 tax liability. Division 296 tax is levied on the individual, not a superannuation fund. However, the tax can be paid either by the individual or they can elect for the amount to be deducted from their nominated superannuation interest. Next Steps If your total super balance is near—or already above—the thresholds, it is important that you contact your financial adviser to arrange tailored modelling and to discuss whether the small-fund CGT election is suitable. Early planning will help you manage cashflow, reporting and any actuarial requirements efficiently. This will also be an opportunity to review the suitability and benefits of holding investment capital in a superannuation structure versus alternatives for amounts in excess of the large threshold.

Prepare for Payday Super: Key Readiness Steps for Employers

By Clarke McEwan • March 30, 2026

From 1 July 2026, the way you pay your employees’ super is changing. Instead of making quarterly super payments to your employees’ funds, contributions will essentially need to be paid at the same time as salary and wages. ‘Payday Super’ marks a significant change for employers. To make sure your business isn’t caught out, make sure you’ve taken the following readiness steps, in line with ATO guidance . Understand the new requirements Under the new regime, super guarantee payments must reach your employees’ super funds within seven business days of payday, though longer deadlines apply in some cases, such as for new employees. The amount of contribution is calculated as 12% of an employee’s ‘qualifying earnings’ – a new term that incorporates and expands on the previous concept of ordinary time earnings. If contributions are not made on time, in full and to the correct fund, the super guarantee charge (SGC) may apply. Plan your transition The ATO recommends that employers do the work now to plan and prepare for Payday Super. This includes: - Deciding when, exactly, your business will move to Payday Super (noting early adoption is perfectly fine). - Reviewing your cash flow position, to make sure your business can cope with a shift away from quarterly to ‘real-time’ super payments. - Checking your current payroll and business processes, such as confirming that super fund details for all eligible employees are up-to-date and complete. Lock in plans Once your business has determined when it will start using Payday Super, the next step is to make sure all relevant systems are ready for the change. That includes the payroll software you use, as well as any clearing houses or super fund portals you may use to make super guarantee contributions. For any businesses that use the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House (SBSCH), remember that it will close permanently from 1 July 2026 as part of the Payday Super reforms. Finally, take the time to troubleshoot any potential issues that might arise once Payday Super is live. For example, your business may need to implement a process quickly to correct any errors that might arise when paying employees’ super contributions. Remember, from 1 July 2026… …Payday Super is mandatory. Any businesses that do not adapt to the new rules and continue to pay super quarterly run the risk of being on the receiving end of compliance action by the ATO. If your business needs help preparing for Payday Super, feel free to reach out to a member of our team. We can walk you through the requirements of the new legislation and troubleshoot any potential pitfalls well ahead of 1 July.

Top 10 Tax Deductions for Doctors and Medical Practitioners in Australia

By Clarke McEwan • March 27, 2026

Top 10 Tax Deductions for Doctors and Medical Practitioners in Australia Medical practitioners in Australia often face complex tax obligations due to high incomes, multiple work locations, and ongoing professional expenses. Understanding which tax deductions are legitimately available can make a significant difference to your after‑tax position—while remaining fully compliant with Australian Taxation Office (ATO) requirements. Below are ten common tax deductions that doctors, specialists, locums, and medical practice owners should review each financial year. 1. Medical Equipment and Professional Tools Medical equipment and tools used for work purposes—such as stethoscopes, diagnostic tools, surgical instruments, and medical bags—are generally tax‑deductible. Lower‑cost items may be claimed immediately, while higher‑value equipment typically needs to be depreciated over its effective life. Depending on the timing and structure of purchase, tax depreciation concessions may allow accelerated deductions. 2. Work‑Related Motor Vehicle Expenses If you travel between multiple work locations, such as hospitals, clinics, private rooms, or patient home visits, you may be entitled to claim motor vehicle expenses. The ATO allows claims using either the logbook method or the cents‑per‑kilometre method. Travel between home and your primary workplace is generally not deductible unless you are a locum or considered genuinely itinerant. 3. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Education Expenses incurred to maintain or improve your existing medical skills are usually deductible. This can include CPD course fees, professional conferences, seminars, and approved training programs. Where there is a clear professional purpose, reasonable travel and accommodation costs associated with education may also be deductible, including for interstate or overseas conferences. 4. Professional Memberships and Registration Fees Registration and subscription costs that are necessary for you to practise medicine are generally tax‑deductible. These may include AHPRA registration fees, medical college memberships, medical association subscriptions, and medical indemnity insurance premiums. 5. Home Office Expenses Many doctors perform administrative duties, telehealth consultations, research, or practice management tasks from home. In these cases, a portion of home office expenses may be claimable, such as electricity, internet, phone usage, and office equipment. Claims must be supported by accurate records and reasonably apportioned between work and private use. 6. Income Protection Insurance Premiums for personally held income protection insurance are generally tax‑deductible for medical practitioners. Life insurance, total and permanent disability (TPD), and trauma insurance premiums are not deductible when held personally, although different rules may apply when insurance is held within superannuation. 7. Technology and Software Expenses Doctors can usually claim deductions for work‑related technology, including laptops, tablets, mobile phones, practice management systems, medical software, and accounting or billing platforms. If an asset is used partly for personal purposes, the expense must be apportioned accordingly. 8. Uniforms, Scrubs, and Laundry Branded uniforms and occupation‑specific clothing such as scrubs are deductible, as are associated laundry and cleaning costs. Conventional clothing, even if only worn at work, is not deductible under ATO guidelines. 9. Interest on Business and Equipment Loans Interest on loans used for income‑producing purposes is generally tax‑deductible. This includes loans for medical equipment, practice fit‑outs, business acquisitions, and certain leasing or finance arrangements. Only the interest portion of repayments is deductible, not the principal. 10. Personal Superannuation Contributions Medical practitioners may be eligible to claim tax deductions for personal superannuation contributions made in addition to employer contributions, subject to concessional contribution caps. A valid Notice of Intent to Claim a Deduction must be lodged with the super fund within the required timeframes. ATO Compliance Considerations Doctors are considered higher‑risk taxpayers due to income levels and deduction profiles. Claims should always be conservative, well‑documented, and clearly linked to the generation of assessable income. Professional advice from an accountant experienced in the medical sector can help ensure compliance while optimising legitimate tax outcomes. Specialist Advice for Medical Practitioners Clarke McEwan Chartered Accountants advises GPs, specialists, locums, and medical practice owners across Queensland and Australia. Our services include medical‑specific tax planning, structuring, compliance, and long‑term wealth strategies. If you would like a review of your tax position or guidance on your deductions, a confidential consultation is available. Book a time with us here Book Initial No Obligation Consultation at Clarke McEwan for all new medical clients.