The case concerned whether a sky dive instructor engaged by the taxpayer was an employee within the meaning of s 12 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 ("SGAA"), for the purposes of determining the Applicant's liability to a superannuation guarantee charge.
The AAT found the worker was an employee within the meanings of ss 12(1), 12(3) and/or 12(8) of the SGAA. Amongst other things, the worker was found to be an employee within the ordinary meaning of the word.
However, the AAT also found that the worker was contracted to participate in the provision of entertainment and therefore was an employee within the extended definition in s 12(8)(a) of the SGAA.
The Decision Impact Statement states:
"The Commissioner's views in SGR 2005/1 and SGR 2009/1 are consistent with the AAT's conclusion that the worker's activities fit into the broad terms in s 12(8)(a), either as "... entertainment, possibly sport, or a similar activity'. This is the first decision considering the application of s 12(8) of the SGAA."