[Case] Uber lost a payroll tax case for $81.5 million
Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] HCA 40 is a landmark Australian tax law decision by the High Court of Australia concerning payroll tax liabilities in the gig economy.
The High Court ruled in a 6:1 majority decision that Uber Australia is liable for $81.5 million AUD in unpaid payroll taxes covering the 2015 to 2020 financial years to the Revenue NSW authority.
No.1
Key Legal Issues & Background
The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) issued payroll tax assessments against Uber Australia. Under the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW), state payroll tax expands beyond standard employer-employee relationships to capture payments under "relevant contracts" (contractor provisions).
Uber challenged the assessments, asserting three primary arguments:
No direct service to Uber: Drivers provided ride-share services directly to riders, not to Uber. Uber framed itself as an intermediary/digital platform.
Payment role: Uber claimed it acted strictly as a "limited payment collection agent" for drivers—collecting fares from riders and remitting them back to drivers minus a platform service fee.
Vehicle exemption: Uber claimed the driving work was subsidiary/ancillary to the driver using their personal vehicle.
No.2
The Ruling & Court's Reasoning
The High Court dismissed Uber’s appeal and held that the remitted fares constitute deemed wages for payroll tax purposes:
Drivers supply services to Uber: A service can be provided to multiple entities simultaneously. By fulfilling trips according to Uber's contractual standards and policies, drivers rendered services directly to Uber to assist in operating its rideshare network.
Fare remittances are "Wages": The Court rejected Uber’s position as a passive collection agent. Because Uber determined pricing structures, deducted its own commission, and retained control over cancellations/adjustments, a direct nexus existed between the driver’s work and the net money remitted by Uber.
Driving is not "Ancillary": The Court denied the vehicle exemption, noting that physical driving services were central to the arrangement, rather than secondary to vehicle use.
(Note: The court emphasized that this decision does not reclassify drivers as common law employees for employment law or superannuation; it specifically applies to the extended definitions of "employer" and "wages" within anti-avoidance contractor payroll tax legislation.)
No.3
Broader Impact
Precedent for Platform & Gig Economy:
The decision sets a major precedent across Australia. Other state revenue bodies (e.g., Victoria SRO) are using similar contractor tax frameworks to target rideshare, food delivery, healthcare, and platform-based aggregator networks.
Substance Over Agency Labeling:
Corporate entities cannot avoid payroll tax exposure merely by drafting contracts that label payments as customer-remitted fees collected on behalf of contractors.
Source: Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue
Disclaimer: This article is intended to provide general information only and does not constitute professional advice for specific circumstances. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for tailored advice.
Comments