This article is more than 24 months old and is now archived. This article has not been updated to reflect any changes to the law.
An entity is not entitled to a 'JobKeeper' payment unless the entity had an ABN on 12 March 2020 or a later time allowed by the Commissioner[1]
The Commissioner's discretion to allow a later time for an entity to have an ABN was considered in the recent Full Federal Court decision Commissioner of Taxation v Apted [2021] FCAFC 45 (Apted). This article outlines the outcome of the case and what it means.
Josh Montebello, MaddocksWhere the Commissioner has been provided with evidence that an active business was being carried on before 12 March 2020, the Commissioner may exercise its discretion to allow an entity to register an ABN or provide \notice of assessable income at a later date.
In this context, the JobKeeper payments for eligible business participants are ordinarily to be directed to businesses that the Commissioner is satisfied was active as at 12 March 2020. In these situations it is relevant to the Commissioner to understand why the business did not hold an ABN or report supplies or income to the Commissioner by 12 March 2020.
In Apted, the respondent was a registered valuer who first registered for an ABN as a sole trader in 2012. In 2018, the respondent cancelled its ABN registration. On 31 March 2020, the respondent applied to the Registrar of the Australian Business Register (ABR) to reactivate the respondent's ABN. The respondent's ABN was reactivated with a date of effect of 31 March 2020.
The respondent applied for JobKeeper payments but was ineligible because:
Following this, the respondent applied that the reactivation of its ABN be amended to 1 July 2019 and the Registrar of the ABR adjusted the date of effect of the respondent’s ABN to 1 July 2019.
This meant that the respondent's ABN had an effective date of 1 July 2019, but also had not had an ABN on the register - had a person checked - on 12 March 2020.
The respondent then objected to the Commissioner's decision that the respondent was ineligible for JobKeeper payments. The respondent objected under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA) at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal).
In response, the Commissioner maintained its view that:
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the respondent did not have an ABN on 12 March 2020. However, the Tribunal exercised the Commissioner's discretion to allow the respondent to register for an ABN at a later date.
The Commissioner appealed the Tribunal's decision and the Court considered:
The key takeaway from the case was that the Court accepted the Commissioner's argument that the rules establish a 'point-in-time test'. The question of whether a person 'had an ABN on 12 March 2020' within the meaning of subsection 11(6) of the CERP Rules is resolved by reference to whether or not, if the ABR had been examined that day, it would have shown that the relevant entity had an ABN.
Accordingly, even though the respondent's ABN had an effective date of 1 July 2019, the respondent did not meet the threshold of the 'point-in-time' test as on 12 March 2020 as the respondent did not have an ABN.
The Court decision reversed the Tribunal's decision and confirms that the requirement to hold an ABN on 12 March 2020 under subsection 11(6) of the CERP Rules is not satisfied where an ABN that is reactivated or applied for after 12 March 2020 is given a retrospective date of effect by the Registrar of the ABR that is on or before 12 March 2020.
The Court held that although the respondent did not satisfy the point-in-time test, the respondent could still claim JobKeeper because:
In the ATO's Decision Impact Statement[2] in relation to Apted, the ATO accepted the Court's view:
For more information, contact Maddocks on (03) 9258 3555 and ask to speak to a member of the Revenue Practice Group.
More Cleardocs information on related topics
You can read earlier ClearLaw articles on a range of topics, such as:
[1] This rule is contained in section 11(6) of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020 (CERP Rules)
[2] https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=LIT/ICD/QUD11of2021/00001
Qualifications: LLB, Deakin University, BA (Political Science), Monash University
Paul is a Special Counsel in Maddocks Government and Not-for-Profit Commercial team. He specialises in:
Paul is Maddocks' main authority in relation to the Personal Property Securities Act 2009.
He has an in-depth understanding of the government sector, as his experience prior to Maddocks includes 13 years with the Victorian Department of Justice.
The legal information and commentary on this site is general only. Documents ordered through Cleardocs affect the user's legal rights and liabilities. To assess their suitability for the user, legal accounting and financial advice must be obtained.