Thank you for all of your help. The service was outstanding - all of my questions were answered promptly, everything ran smoothly

M. Elliot
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas

Tax Law - FBT nexus requirement

Date: February 22, 2012

Authors: Jonathan Lim B.A., LL.B. (Hons)

Nexus with employment

A benefit cannot be a taxable fringe benefit unless it is provided in respect of the employment of an employee. This is the case even if the benefit is provided to an associate of the employee, or a non-associated third party in some cases.

In respect of”

A benefit is provided “in respect of” employment where the reason for the provision is, directly or indirectly, the employment. Past or present employment counts as employment.

Multiple purposes

A benefit provided in respect of multiple purposes can still count as being “in respect of employment.”

For example, it has been held that a family company providing motor vehicles to three employee-directors who were all family members, in respect of their effective ownership of the company, can be subject to FBT. Benefits provided in respect of purposes including ownership or family relationships are specifically named in the FBT Act as not being incompatible with being a fringe benefit, provided the employment reason is among the reasons.

Sufficient or material

However, it has also been held by the courts that a causal connection or relationship between the benefit and the employment is not sufficient if the connection is not sufficient or material. Thus a very minor connection between the benefit and the employment may sever the nexus.

“An employee”

Even though payments do not have to be made to the employee directly, they still have to be made in respect of a particular employee’s employment. Thus, the courts have held that payments into an “employee incentive trust” with no particular employee identified were not taxable fringe benefits.

Broken nexus

The ATO has issued a ruling specifying that the following are examples of where a benefit provided would not satisfy the nexus requirement:

  • a family’s children are primary producers working on the family farm, and the family provides the children with accommodation and meals;

  • a motor mechanic apprentices his son and provides board in the family home to his son;

  • parents run a small business in which their children work, and the parents give birthday presents to their children;

  • an adult child leaves the family business and several years later his parents give him a wedding gift or a loan to buy a matrimonial home; or

  • a family sets up a private company to hold title to their farm homestead, they work for the company and the company pays rent on the homestead.

These examples are perhaps unhelpful, since they are so cautious. However, it can be seen that family bonds may be one of the main reasons why a benefit may be provided and yet not be in respect of employment.

Example: ESS interests

V Co has an employee, W. V Co runs an employee share scheme to encourage its employees to improve the share price of the company. V Co provides W with an ESS interest which is an option to acquire 50 shares in V Co in five years’ time, provided the share value of V Co increases by more than 20% during that time.

V Co’s share value does increase, by more than 20%. After the five year restriction W exercises her option and acquires the 50 shares in V Co.

In this case:

  • V Co’s ESS interest acquired by W at the beginning of the five years is assessed under the ESS regime and not FBT; and

  • the shares W gets when she exercises her option are also not subject to FBT. The shares are a benefit, and somewhat related to employment, but are benefits arising from exercising rights previously obtained under the ESS.

Thus, FBT does not apply to this situation.

Conclusion

If you have concerns about FBT and the nexus requirement, call LAC Lawyers and we can provide advice and assistance.

  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas