Employee or Contractor ? Getting it Right

Clarke McEwan Accountants

It is crucial to understand the differences between employees and contractors because as an employer, you will be held responsible for getting it right.

Coping with the typical ebbs and flows of running a small business sometimes requires an extra pair of hands.

This has seen independent contractor appointments become a frequent alternative to traditional Pay as You Go (PAYG) employment, particularly when specialist skills cannot be readily obtained by recruiting full- or part-time employees.

However, it is important to not rush in and hire someone without taking account of the many factors that under the Independent Contractors Act 2006 and Fair Work Act 2009 differentiate an employee from a contractor. Any such arrangements are likely to be scrutinised by industry watchdog the Fair Work Ombudsman.

CPA Australia points out that there are dangers in engaging an individual as a contractor without properly understanding relevant legislation. You may find the person is considered an employee at law, which involves a range of legal obligations – and liabilities – if you get it wrong.

According to the Ombudsman, the Fair Work Act contains provisions to protect the rights and entitlements of independent contractors.

Although its website explains the factors that may differentiate an employee from an independent contractor, there is no single indicator.

"Each determination is based on the individual merits of the work arrangement in place," the information sheet states. "Courts always look at the totality of the relationship between the parties when determining the status of a person's employment."

Common indicators that may help to ascertain a person's employment status include the degree of control they have over work performed; whether hours are standard or set by the employer (as opposed to negotiation), expectations from work performed (i.e. ongoing or for a specific task); superannuation entitlements; provision of tools and equipment (by the employer or provider); method of payment (regular or on completion of a contract or project); and if paid leave is accrued.

Don't rush in

It's not uncommon for businesses that fail to fully appreciate the key distinctions between the two working arrangements to find themselves in hot water – and the risk is particularly high for small accounting practices that need to deal with intense periods such as end of year tax reporting.

Smaller firms and solo operators often outsource work without properly recording the terms of engagement in writing. Should a dispute arise about whether a provider was a contractor or employee – or there is disagreement between the parties about the terms of the contract – it could ultimately lead to litigation.

Therefore, it is imperative all terms of engagement are recorded in a written contract before the start of an arrangement, and that both parties sign it. Even if you have already engaged the person, it's not too late to enter into a written contract and acknowledge that it applies retrospectively.

Professional services firm KPMG released a report last year that cited a famous Federal Court of Australia remark; namely that contracting parties "cannot create something which has every feature of a rooster, but call it a duck and insist that everybody else recognise it as a duck."

The report, Engaging contractors: time to get your ducks in a row , explains that engaging independent contractors can have unforeseen employment law and tax consequences if the relationship has features similar to a PAYG arrangement.

In cases where liability is proven, company directors will be held accountable, the report warns.

Even so, KPMG senior manager Paul Hum acknowledges that working out whether an individual is an employee or contractor is not necessarily straight-forward.

"Unless there's a sudden significant change in the arrangement between engaging parties, it's extremely difficult to draw a line in the sand at a particular point in time," Hum says.

"Our advice to businesses typically centres on developing robust procedures and policies to identify and prevent risky arrangements upfront. If an individual is not identified upfront as being a risk, the risk should be reassessed each time the arrangement is extended or changed."

The ramifications of inappropriately categorising an employee are similarly complex, he adds.

"Employers have to comply with a whole range of different obligations which don't apply to contractor arrangements. Excluding penalties and interest, this could be anywhere between 15 and 30 per cent of amounts already paid."

In the event a contractor is deemed to have actually been an employee, such obligations include fringe benefits tax (FBT) and the superannuation guarantee charge (SGC) to the Australian Taxation Office(ATO), payroll tax to revenue offices, workers compensation to insurers or relevant authorities, back pay (if award conditions were not met), and leave entitlements, Hum explains.

What a sham

Also, be warned that the Fair Work Ombudsman interprets sham contracting arrangements as any attempt by an employer to deliberately disguise an employment relationship as an independent contracting arrangement – usually to avoid responsibility for employee entitlements.

Under the sham contracting provisions of the Fair Work Act, an employer cannot:

  • dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee for the purpose of engaging them as an independent contractor; or
  • make a knowingly false statement to persuade or influence an employee to become an independent contractor.

Fair Work Inspectors can seek penalties for contraventions of sham contracting arrangements or coercing a party to enter into a reform opt-in agreement. The courts may also impose a maximum penalty of $51,000 per contravention.

If you have any uncertainty as to whether your contractors are actually employees, contact us at Clarke McEwan.

By Clarke McEwan September 1, 2026
At the Federal Budget in May 2026, the Government announced that it would reintroduce a loss carry back tax offset for companies, providing a crucial buffer to any business facing difficult trading conditions.
By Clarke McEwan August 30, 2026
Tax Time 2026 is in full swing, and with that comes a decision for anyone who uses their car for work purposes: is it better to claim a deduction using the logbook or cents per kilometre method? When can I claim car expenses? Broadly, tax deductions for car expenses (i.e. the costs you incur to own and operate a car) are available where you use your car for work-related trips, such as for travel between workplaces or to perform your work duties. The exception is ordinary commuting to and from work - such expenses cannot typically be claimed, as they’re considered private expenses. Cents per kilometre method The cents per kilometre method allows you to claim a fixed rate for each work-related kilometre you travel, up to a maximum of 5,000 km each year. This fixed rate per km covers all of your car expenses for a year, including decline in value, registration and insurance, maintenance, repairs and fuel costs. For the 2025-26 tax year, the rate of deduction is 88 cents per kilometre, which means this tax time, the maximum potential amount of deduction is $4,400. (And keep in mind that the rate of deduction has been increased to 91 cents per km as of 1 July 2026, meaning a total potential deduction of $4,550 in the 2026-27 tax year). One of the benefits of using the cents per kilometre method is that it’s relatively simple, as you don’t need to keep receipts for your fuel or car expenses. However, you do need to keep records to show how you’ve calculated your work-related kilometres (for example, a diary), and you also need to be able to show that you own the car you’re using for work. Logbook method If you have a lot of work-related car expenses and have the time, you might find that the logbook method gives you the best deduction. The logbook method allows you to claim the work-related portion of your actual car expenses. This means that you can claim for a percentage of the actual expenses incurred on running costs such as fuel, electricity, servicing, registration, insurance and the decline in value, provided you’ve used the car in the course of your work. However, as the potential deductions under the logbook method are higher, there are stricter record-keeping requirements to meet. This includes keeping a logbook, which allows the calculation of how much you can claim back, it must: - cover at least 12 continuous weeks and be broadly representative of your travel, - include the reason and purpose, as well as the destination of every work-related journey, - the odometer reading at the start and end of each journey, - and the total kilometres travelled on the journey, - include odometer readings for the start and end of the logbook period and the total kilometres travelled during that period. Each journey in your logbook must be made at the end of the journey or as soon as possible afterwards. If you don't have a valid logbook, then unfortunately you cannot use the logbook method to claim car expenses, although the cents per km method may be available instead. Which is better? The answer to whether you should choose the logbook or cents per km method is very dependent on your personal situation. If you have light work-related car use and don’t love keeping extensive records, the cents per km method may be better suited to your needs, while those who use their car for work frequently may receive a higher deduction under the logbook method. If you’re unsure which method is best for you, speak to a member of our team today.
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
By Clarke McEwan August 19, 2026
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
By Clarke McEwan August 17, 2026
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care.
By Clarke McEwan August 11, 2026
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care. Strong financial management is essential for maintaining profitability, supporting growth, meeting compliance obligations, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the practice.
By Clarke McEwan August 10, 2026
To ensure passage of the negative gearing and CGT discount changes that were announced in the May 2026 Federal Budget the Government agreed to make amendments to the SMSF borrowing rules. SMSFs are able to borrow in restricted circumstances which includes borrowing under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase a single acquirable asset. While there have previously been no specific legislative restrictions on the type of asset a SMSF can borrow to purchase, most commonly we see LRBAs being used to purchase property. Up until this point, this could have been any type of real property. These amendments will mean that when SMSF trustees wish to borrow to purchase a property, it must meet the business real property (BRP) definition. This BRP definition relates to usage of the property rather than zoning or what the property was originally built for. This change became law on 26 June 2026, but the Bill includes a 45 day transitional period which will finish on 10 August 2026. This transitional period may allow for arrangements that are currently being implemented on non-BRP assets to be allowable under the new rules where settlement occurs after 10 August 2026, provided the arrangement to purchase the property was entered into on or before 10 August 2026. We recommend that SMSF trustees who are currently implementing LRBA arrangements on non-BRP assets seek specialist SMSF legal advice to ensure their arrangements meet these transitional rules. While this change has been referred to in the media as a ban on super funds borrowing to purchase residential property, the use of the BRP definition makes the change slightly more complex than this. As this definition relates to usage of the property, it is possible that some residentially designed properties could meet the BRP definition (for example, a medical practice that operates from a residentially designed terrace dwelling). The BRP definition also requires that the property is wholly and exclusively used for business purposes. This could mean that some properties that may initially appear to be commercial in nature may not meet the BRP definition (for example, a mixed use residential and retail property on a single title). We recommend that SMSF trustees entering into new LRBAs seek advice from specialist legal and financial advisers to ensure the new requirements are met. Existing arrangements The updated rules allow for existing LRBAs over non-BRP assets to continue. They also allow for existing arrangements to be refinanced, subject to lender availability and approval. For any further information please contact our office.
More Posts