Advertising


News

Payroll tax should be top of National Cabinet agenda: RACGP


Michelle Wisbey


5/12/2023 3:55:34 PM

The college says a singular set of rules need to be established to keep practice doors open, labelling the status quo ‘a joke, at best’.

Members of National Cabinet addressing media.
This year’s Health of the Nation report found 80% of practice owners are concerned about the viability of their practice. (Image: AAP)

The RACGP is calling for urgent action on payroll tax, as inconsistency continues to provoke widespread anxiety among practice owners and tenant doctors alike.
 
It says the looming National Cabinet meeting should be used to create nationally consistent rules to protect patients’ access to healthcare.
 
The plea comes after a payroll tax ruling in Queensland confirmed patients’ fees paid directly to a GP for their services will not be subject to payroll tax.
 
This is the same approach the RACGP now wants implemented in every state and territory, all of which currently have different rules, concessions, and amnesties.
 
Specifically, it wants governments to commit to:

  • no retrospective collection of payroll tax liabilities
  • clarification on what constitutes a ‘relevant contract’
  • a full exemption from payroll tax for independent practitioners, or an amnesty until the Federal Government finalises its health funding reforms, and general practices can transition to new business models
  • no payroll tax on patients’ fees/Medicare paid to their GP for their services.
RACGP President Dr Nicole Higgins said without these changes, healthcare systems will deteriorate and state hospitals will be forced under more pressure than ever before.
 
‘It’s a joke at best and coercive at worst, and it will send practices broke,’ she said.
 
‘The Federal Government has recognised the critical role of general practice in keeping people healthy and out of hospital, and they’re progressing important reforms to strengthen Medicare, and ensure all Australians have access to affordable GP care.
 
‘But state and territory governments risk derailing these federal reforms by hitting practices with extra payroll tax. In many states and territories, there’s a very real risk of widespread practice closures and higher out-of-pocket fees for patients.’
 
This year’s Health of the Nation report found 80% of owners are concerned about the viability of their practice, while 184 general practices shutdown last year alone.
 
Clinics across the nation have already faced potentially practice-closing tax bills, with one totalling $800,000 and another more than $1 million.
 
This is despite a 2010 Harmonisation Joint Protocol for payroll tax, a key mechanism to ensure a uniform approach to the application of taxation across Australia.
 
Dr Higgins said the lack of harmonisation is becoming ‘dire’ for many, while for others it has led to confusion and fear.
 
‘For example, Victoria is refusing to admit anything has changed, despite the many practice owners crying out for help because they’re being hit with huge retrospective tax bills they can’t afford to pay,’ she said.
 
‘And just recently, in Australia’s capital, practices have received threatening letters from the ACT Revenue Office informing them they risk being audited unless they register for payroll tax.
 
‘The ACT Government has shown it has no clue how general practice or bulk billing works by demanding practices bulk bill an impossibly high amount in order to receive a temporary payroll tax amnesty.
 
‘We need to sort this out urgently.’
 
Log in below to join the conversation.



business of general practice payroll tax practice ownership


newsGP weekly poll Is it becoming more difficult to access specialist psychiatric support for patients with complex mental presentations?
 
97%
 
1%
 
0%
Related




newsGP weekly poll Is it becoming more difficult to access specialist psychiatric support for patients with complex mental presentations?

Advertising

Advertising


Login to comment

Dr Barry Ian Turner   6/12/2023 9:42:31 AM

Thomas v Naaz examined whether the contracts in place only for those doctors whom the practice received the income for and then passed a net amount on to the doctors were "relevant contracts" and whether those doctors were "deemed employees" under ss 33-35 of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW), and therefore subject to payroll tax, which the Justices held they were.
However" Exceptionally , there were three medical practitioners who made their claims to, and received money directly from, Medicare"[9]
"Exceptionally , the Chief Commissioner did not assess the amounts paid directly to the three medical practitioners who administered their own claims and did not participate in the administrative arrangement summarised above as contributing to taxable wages"[12].
Furthermore, the Decision held"Neither of those propositions are fatal to the conclusion that the conclusion that the medical practitioners provided a service to the applicant.
This is now established law.