Tax Alert - New payroll tax guidance for medical centre businesses and contractors

Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants

New payroll tax guidance for medical centre businesses and contractors


The Victorian State Revenue Office (SRO) has recently released new guidance explaining the application of the contractor provisions in the Payroll Tax Act 2007 on an entity operating a medical centre business (the medical centre) that contracts with medical and health practitioners (the practitioners) to provide services to patients.


The guidance intends to provide greater clarity for entities that operate the medical centre, including dental clinics, physiotherapy practices, radiology centres and similar healthcare providers who contract with medical, dental and other health practitioners (or their entities) to provide patients with access to the services of the practitioners.


This new guidance is to be applied retrospectively and prospectively. However, we note this new guidance does not have the force of law, and each decision made by the SRO must be done on the merits of each individual case.


What is a ‘relevant contract’?


When a contract between a principal and a contractor is a ‘relevant contract’, the following treatment applies:

  • the principal who engages the contractor is deemed to be an employer;
  • the contractor is deemed to be an employee; and
  • payments made under the contract for the performance of work are deemed to be wages.


These deemed wages are subject to payroll tax where the services performed have the necessary nexus with Victoria, and this needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.


Application of ‘relevant contract’ provisions to the medical centre


A contract between an entity that conducts the medical centre and a practitioner is a ‘relevant contract’ if all of the following factors apply:

  1. the practitioner carries on a business or practice of providing medical-related services to patients;
  2. in the course of conducting its business, the medical centre:
  3. provides members of the public with access to medical-related services;
  4. engages a practitioner to supply services to the medical centre by serving patients on its behalf; and
  5. an exemption (explained below) does not apply.


If a medical centre engages a practitioner to practise from its medical centre, or holds out to the public that it provides patients with access to medical services of a practitioner, it is likely the ‘relevant contract’ provisions will apply to the contract with the practitioner unless an exception applies.


What are the exemptions from the ‘relevant contract’ provisions?


Basically, if an exemption applies, no payroll tax liability under the ‘relevant contract’ provisions arises.


There are three exemptions which are more likely to apply to a contract between a medical centre and a practitioner, including:

  • The practitioner provides services to the public generally;
  • The practitioner performs work for no more than 90 days in a financial year; and
  • Services are performed by two or more persons.


When claiming an exemption, a medical centre must be able to substantiate the exemption with sufficient evidence.


Providing services to the public generally


A contract between a medical centre and a practitioner is not a ‘relevant contract’ in relation to a financial year if the Commissioner is satisfied the practitioner who provided the services under the contract ordinarily performs services of that kind to the public generally in that financial year.


To qualify for the first exemption, the practitioner must provide services of the same kind to other principals, such as other medical centres or hospitals.


If a practitioner practises at multiple medical centres but those centres are members of the same group for payroll tax purposes, the medical centre may not be entitled to the exemption.


To see example 3 from the guidance (click here).


Working for 90 days or less in a financial year


Under the second exemption, if a practitioner performs work under a contract for no more than 90 days during a financial year, the contract is exempt for that financial year. Each calendar day on which the practitioner performs work counts as 1 day, regardless of the time spent working on a particular day.


To see example 4 from the guidance (click here).


Services performed by two or more persons


This third exemption applies if the medical centre contracts with a practitioner, and the practitioner and at least one other person employed by or who provides services for the practitioner perform the work required under the contract.


The second person (ie. nurse, assistant) that provides services to or for the practitioner may be a company, but the work must be performed by a natural person.


The work performed by the second person must be work required to be performed under the contract between the medical centre and the practitioner.


This third exemption does not apply if:

  • the second person is engaged by the medical centre, not by the practitioner, to provide the services; or
  • the second person provides general business-related services that are not required to be provided to the medical centre under the relevant contract (ie. bookkeeping, accounting or business advisory services provided to the practitioner).


The guidance provides three basic examples to clarify that it is the practitioner (and not the medical centre) that must engage the ‘second person’.


To see examples 5, 6 and 7 from the guidance (click here).


Which payments are deemed to be wages?


Certain amounts paid or payable under a relevant contract by a medical centre are wages for payroll tax purposes if the payments are in relation to the performance of work (either directly or indirectly) relating to the ‘relevant contract’ by the medical centre.


Recent case law confirms that there will be an ‘indirect’ relationship where the contractual relationship included the following characteristics:

  • the doctors provided the services to patients;
  • the patients assigned their medical benefits to the doctors;
  • the medical centre, on behalf of the doctors, submitted the assigned claims for the medical benefits to Medicare;
  • Medicare paid those benefits to the medical centre; and
  • The medical centre retained 30% of the amounts received from Medicare and paid the remaining 70% to the doctors as the payments.


It does not matter that payments to a practitioner are paid from money received by the medical centre on behalf of practitioners, whether from patient fees or Medicare payments. When the practitioner’s entitlement is recognised and the money is paid or becomes payable, it constitutes wages for payroll tax purposes.


If a payment by a medical centre to a practitioner includes an amount that is not attributed to the performance of work, only the amount paid for the performance of work is subject to payroll tax.



Please do not hesitate to contact your Lowe Lippmann Relationship Partner if you wish to discuss any of these matters further.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation


September 4, 2026
Yesterday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers released draft legislation to implement the key components of the 30% minimum trust tax on discretionary trusts announced in the Federal Budget during May 2026.
September 2, 2026
Discretionary trusts and the proposed 30% minimum tax Discretionary trusts, often referred to as family trusts, have been a popular structure for Australian families and businesses for many decades. They are commonly used to operate family businesses, hold investments and assist with succession planning. Their flexibility, together with asset protection and estate planning benefits, has made them an attractive option for many groups. In the 2026–27 Federal Budget, the Government announced a significant proposed change. From 1 July 2028 , trustees of discretionary trusts would generally be required to pay a minimum tax of 30% on the trust's taxable income . According to the Government, the proposal is intended to better align the tax paid on trust income with that paid by salary and wage earners, while reducing opportunities to split income between family members. However, the announcement has generated considerable debate. Professional bodies, business groups and tax advisers have expressed concerns that the changes could increase complexity and compliance costs for many genuine family businesses and investment structures. How the proposal is expected to work Under the proposal, the trustee would generally pay the minimum 30% tax on the trust's taxable income. Where trust income is distributed to individual beneficiaries or certain other non-corporate beneficiaries , those beneficiaries would generally receive a non-refundable tax offset recognising the tax already paid by the trustee. This is intended to reduce the risk of the same income being taxed twice, but while maintaining the impact of the 30% minimum tax rate. Importantly, the minimum tax would not apply to every trust . The Government has indicated that a number of trusts would be excluded, including fixed trusts, widely held trusts, complying superannuation funds, charitable trusts, deceased estates, special disability trusts and genuine testamentary trusts. Primary production income and certain income relating to vulnerable minors would also be excluded. The Government has also stated that more than 90% of small businesses are not expected to be affected. While that may be reassuring for some taxpayers, there are still some important issues that could affect family groups using discretionary trusts. What could this mean in practice? One area likely to receive close attention is the use of companies as beneficiaries of family trusts. Many family groups have historically distributed some trust income to a company. This can provide flexibility in managing cash flow, retaining profits within the business and funding future growth. Under the proposed rules, however, the corporate beneficiary would not receive a tax offset for the tax already paid by the trustee . In many cases this will mean that income distributed from a discretionary trust to a company would be subject to double taxation. Another practical impact of the proposed change is that some family groups may find it more difficult to fully utilise existing tax losses. While the impact will depend on each group's circumstances, the proposed minimum tax is likely to reduce some of the flexibility that currently exists when managing taxable income across a family structure within many groups. The Government has also proposed a temporary three-year rollover period, commencing from 1 July 2027, to help restructure into alternative business structures , such as companies or fixed trusts, without triggering immediate income tax or capital gains tax consequences. While this may assist some groups, restructuring is rarely straightforward. Depending on the circumstances, it might be necessary to consider things like stamp duty, loan approvals, financing arrangements, contract changes, licensing requirements and professional advice. Even relatively simple restructures can involve significant time and cost, so careful planning will be important. The rules are not yet final At this stage, the proposal remains subject to consultation . Treasury released a consultation paper in July 2026 seeking feedback on a range of design issues, including how the new rules would operate in different situations. Final legislation has not yet been introduced , meaning aspects of the proposal could still change before the rules become law. For this reason, most groups utilising discretionary trust structures should avoid making major structural decisions based solely on the announcement. Instead, it is sensible to monitor developments while considering whether existing structures are likely to remain appropriate if the proposal proceeds. What should you do now? For many families, discretionary trusts are about much more than tax. They can continue to provide valuable asset protection, succession planning and business flexibility. The proposed changes do not remove those benefits, nor do they prevent discretionary trusts from continuing to be used. However, the proposal does have the potential to change the tax outcomes for some family groups, particularly those with more complex structures or those that regularly distribute income to companies. With the proposed start date still some time away, there is an opportunity to pause and carefully understand how the changes may affect your circumstances and consider whether any planning or restructuring might be appropriate. As the legislation develops, we can help you assess the impact on your business or investment structure and determine whether any action is warranted.
August 4, 2026
Government to permanently extend $20,000 instant asset write-off The Government has recently introduced legislation that would make the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent for small businesses (as announced in the 2026 Federal Budget). If enacted, the changes would: permanently set the instant asset write-off threshold at $20,000 (instead of $1,000) for eligible depreciating assets first used, or installed ready for use, for a taxable purpose from 1 July 2026; and permanently set the general small business pool threshold at $20,000 from 1 July 2026. The changes would also further suspend the 'lock-out rule' until 30 June 2027. This rule otherwise prevents a business that has chosen not to use the simplified depreciation rules from re-entering the regime for five years.
More Posts