The AAT has held that a payment received by the taxpayer from her employer on her resignation from employment was not a redundancy payment under s 83-175(1) ITAA 1997.
The taxpayer resigned from her position with her employer. The AAT said, at para 19:
"On the evidence, the applicant and/or her representative initiated discussions relating to her employment with the employer ending and an offer was made by or on behalf of the applicant to the employer to resign her position. The respondent contends that her termination was ultimately the applicant’s decision and was therefore not a dismissal. Moreover, the respondent contends that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the applicant was constructively dismissed. In my view, these contentions are correct."
The taxpayer argued that the payment was a redundancy payment because her duties were transferred to other employees and her position was not replaced. The AAT held that for a payment to qualify as a genuine redundancy payment, the employee must be dismissed from employment. Its finding that there was no dismissal meant that the payment was not a redundancy payment. The Commissioner's objection decision was confirmed.
CZRS and FCT  AATA 40 (AAT, Dunne SM, 29 January 2015).